v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

Ricky Beam jfbeam at gmail.com
Thu Feb 5 23:15:02 UTC 2009

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:18:15 -0500, Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote:
> On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> This is the exact same bull**** as the /8 allocations in the early days  
>> of IPv4.
> So in fact it's not *exactly* the same.

Just because the address space is mind-alteringly larger does not mean the  
same flawed thought process isn't being used.  In the mid-80's, /8's were  
handed out like candy because there were "lots of address space" and  
"we'll never use it all."  Well, that didn't last very long.  I've  
listened to IPv6 advocates singing that same song for a decade.  They are  
doomed to repeat the same mistake. (sure, it'll take longer than with  

> You might like to review the DHCPv6 specification and try some of its  
> implementations.

IPv6 was designed to "not need DHCP."  DHCPv6 has come about since people  
need more than just an address from "autoconfiguration".

I can recall many posts over the years from the IPng WG telling people  
they didn't need DHCP.


More information about the NANOG mailing list