Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Thu Jul 9 10:30:10 UTC 2015

Using one-byte buffers, one hopes. :)

-mel via cell

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple
>>> layers of routing within the home.
> 
> No, what they often have is multiple layers of nat. I was at a hotel
> once that had plugged in 12 APs, serially, wan, to lan, to wan, to
> lan, to wan ports... because the Internet is a series of tubes, right?
> 
>> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future.
>> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.
>> 
>> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to
>> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you
>> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT),
>> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples.
>> 
>> Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it
>> doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are
>> hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home,
>> some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring
>> end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account
>> just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks,
>> personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and
>> fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets
>> being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can
>> already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells
>> us that there will probably be applications that need thousands.
>> 
>> Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should
>> make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like
>> "/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that."
> 
> In my case I have completely abandoned much of the debris of ipv4 and
> ipv6 - using self assigned /128s and a mesh routing protocol
> everywhere, giving up on multicast as we knew it, and all I need is
> one /64 to route my (almost entirely wireless) world.
> 
> Somehow I doubt this will become a common option for others, but it
> sure is easier than navigating the slew of standards, configuring
> centralized services, and casting and configuring limited and highly
> dynamic ipv6 subnets around.
> 
> 
>> Regards, K.
>> 
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
>> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
>> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>> 
>> GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
>> Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> worldwide bufferbloat report:
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat
> And:
> What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast