nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb () netcases net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:38:34 -0500 (EST)
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each cable modem a /64?That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an ISP, but I have a /48 and each subnet is a /64. Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, poorly designed, etc.)I Am Not An ISP either. :) I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem. And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I bet when someone said "four-point-two BILLION addresses", someone else said "no $@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many...."
Ah, but RFC 760, before 791, did assume "more than 253 networks? Nahhh..."
Current thread:
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 03)
- IPv6 space (was: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space ) Deepak Jain (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Trey Darley (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Heather Schiller (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Scott Howard (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)
- v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Howard C. Berkowitz (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Message not available
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)