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

David W. Hankins David_Hankins at isc.org
Thu Feb 5 17:55:16 CST 2009


On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15 
>> years.
>
> So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.

Ahh, the 90s.  No need for NAT yet.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOCKS

The world was smaller then.  Or maybe there was just less in it?

>> This is the exact same bull**** as the /8 allocations in the early days of 
>> IPv4.

The man is correct:  This is class-based allocations all over again.
On purpose.  After watching class-based allocations crash and burn.

One who believes history repeats itself will think that this will only
end in pain.  If anything, only the timescales change.

One who believes themselves to be above the mistakes of the past will
of course think this plan is totally without precedent for flaw.

Never between these two beliefs shall we meet.  I think Ricky and
Iljitsch are discovering this.

>> Why do people avoid and resist IPv6... because it was designed with blind 
>> ignorance of the history of IPv4's mistakes (and how we *all* run our IPv4 
>> networks.)  Dooming us to repeating ALL those mistakes again.
>
>> Exhibit A: With IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration (tm) (patent pending), you 
>> don't need DHCP. *face plant*  The IPv4 mistake you've NOT learned from 
>> here is "rarp".  DCHP does far more than tell a host was address it should 
>> use.

Actually it goes further back than rarp; IPv6 RA is actually more
closely related to IPv4 ICMP Router Advertisements (itself a very
RIP-like way to give only default routes), extended to also carry
RIP-like local-prefix routes.  Let's just say it's a slightly
restricted (feature-limited?) RIP.  So, start with that and add RARP-
like features with (more complicated) client-based algorithms, and
you've got the picture.

But yeah, in that the static->RARP->BOOTP->DHCP progression was a
dialogue between operators and IETF, IPv6 has basically thrown that
dialogue out with the bathwater, and we're having it all over again.

Fun!

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090205/c7680a63/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list