Re: [pekkas@localhost: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?]
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:23:10 +0200
I agree, giving customers a /128 almost guarantees that customers won't be
able to run a private network. NATs are difficult to set up on IPv4 (don't
ask your mom to do it), but on top of that they're not particularly well
liked on IPv6. This may be somewhat of a newbie question, but would all v6
networks want to have DNS delegation, including PANs? I could see an ISP
giving everyone a /64, but only delegating DNS authority to those /64s who
register themselves as networks. I guess it depends on how DNS will pan out
in IPv6.
Regards,
John
mercredi, le 16 mai 2001 à 16h11 +0300, Pekka Savola a écrit :
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote:
> [snip]
> > > ---
> > > * IAB/IESG recommended /48.
> > > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is
> > > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!]
> > > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given
> > > 802.11, bluetooth, etc.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed.
> > >
> > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to
> > > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
> >
> > The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the
> > ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one
> > subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48.
>
> Yes. I can already see the pricing:
>
> One device: 20$
> 2+ devices: 40$
> Network of devices: 60$
>
> Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't
> bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer
> contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise.
>
> Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't.
>
> I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet
> connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase.
> If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options
> people are given. Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a
> hack to do NATv6. I don't think this should be encouraged. The rules
> should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
>
>
>
--
John WELLS
INRIA Rhône-Alpes équipe Planète - ENSIMAG 3A/Télécomm et Réseaux
Virginia Tech Networking and Visualization Lab
Clé public: finger wells@localhost <interne>
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature
