nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc () internode com au>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:41:01 +1030
Anthony Roberts wrote:
Why do we want to prevent people using NAT? If people choose to use NAT, then I have no issue with that. This anti-NAT zealotism is tiring and misplaced.On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc () internode com au> wrote:Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.
And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a router.Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically is insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables more than is rational.No larger than their ARP tables are now.
MMC -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 4, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: mmc () internode com au Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
Current thread:
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW), (continued)
- 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)
- 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)] Nathan Ward (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)] TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Leo Bicknell (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)] Owen DeLong (Feb 05)