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

Robert D. Scott robert at ufl.edu
Fri Feb 6 00:19:37 UTC 2009

Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and handle the problem. The solution to many of
these networking conundrums should rest with the application people, and NOT
the network people.

While I am ranting, my other pet peeve are proprietary protocols that the
developer cannot take another couple of hours to provide a decoder for. If
you develop the protocol any of the developers at the Wireshark group would
help with the decode plugin.

Robert D. Scott                 Robert at ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer         352-273-0113 Phone
CNS - Network Services          352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist
University of Florida           352-392-9440 FAX
Florida Lambda Rail             352-294-3571 FLR NOC
Gainesville, FL  32611          321-663-0421 Cell

-----Original Message-----
From: Sven-Haegar Koch [mailto:haegar at sdinet.de] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM
To: John Osmon
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
space (IPv6-MW)]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for  
> > nearly 15 years.  I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4  
> > address for all of them.  I have 2 private /24's using a single public  
> > IPv4 address right now -- as they have been for 6+ years.  Yet, in the
> > order, you're telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2

> > laptops, a Wii, 3 tivos, a router, and an access point? 
> Thank you.  Your ability to live with proxied/NATed Internet access has
> helped stave off the problems we're seeing now.  
> The flip side shows up when Nintendo creates a cool new protocol for the
> that requires Internet access.  You Wii won't be able to participate
> until you teach your proxy/NAT box about the new protocol.

What's the difference to firewalling without NAT? (Noone should connect 
their (home) network without at least inbound filtering) There I have to 
wait for the firewall box to support connection tracking for the new 
(broken) protocol.

If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs, 
do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their 
firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?


The lights are fading out, once more...

More information about the NANOG mailing list