v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
mmc at internode.com.au
Thu Feb 5 01:11:01 UTC 2009
Anthony Roberts wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
> <mmc at internode.com.au> wrote:
>> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
>> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
> It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
> their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.
Why do we want to prevent people using NAT? If people choose to use
NAT, then I have no issue with that.
This anti-NAT zealotism is tiring and misplaced.
>> Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own
>> statically is insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables
>> more than is rational.
> No larger than their ARP tables are now.
And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a
Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks
Level 4, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
More information about the NANOG