ISP customer assignments
jfbeam at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 03:23:17 UTC 2009
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:14:01 -0400, Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:
> Generally speaking, we shouldn't *want* end users to be provided with a
> single /64. The number of addresses is not the point. The idea of
> getting rid of the horribleness that is CIDR is the point.
You underestimate the power of the marketing department and the bean
counters. I assure you, residential ISPs are looking for schemes to give
out as little address space as possible.
> The current revision of IPv6 introduces a way to nail down the boundary
> between network and host. This is fantastic, from an implementation
> point of view. It simplifies the design of silicon for forwarding
> engines, etc.
And it's 150% Wrong Thinking(tm). IPv6 is classless - PERIOD. The
instant some idiot wires /64 into silicon, we're right back to not being
able to use x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255. Addresses are 128-bits; you cannot
make any assumptions about what people may or may not be doing with those
bits. If I don't use SLAAC, then I'm not bound by it's lame rules.
> You don't do that. Or at least, you shouldn't do that. :-) We have a
> fairly reliable DNS system these days...
And where did DNS get the name/number assignments? In my case, it's
either been typed in by ME or automatically updated by DHCP.
More information about the NANOG