v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
mike at mtcc.com
Mon Feb 9 23:18:14 UTC 2009
Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they
>> would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of
>> them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same
>> question and see if you get the same answer.
> I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people
> understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so think
> that static addressing is the only way forward.
> With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal
> interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes.
I wonder how much this is all going to change as there's an inevitable
shift from "my computer" being The Client, to "my computer" being one
of many "servers" that my cell phone uses, and is generally tethered
to. Or just the situation that you have more than one place of residence
and there is a somewhat indeterminate concept of what "my computer"
This is somewhat reminiscent of the pop/imap days, but there's just so
much more stuff these days and broadband is still way too slow to
really have a completely viable network/server solution. Fast servers
in the network are great, but there are is a fairly large set of things
that it just doesn't handle well; manifestly given the still huge split
between local and network storage. (what percentage of "stuff" is in the
To me, that says that more and more people are going to want to access
their "home computer" as if it were a server... which in fact it really
is in the case of an iPhone wanting to suck down the latest dross from
iTunes. And server means non-client accessiblity however you accomplish
More information about the NANOG