Thanks. That is a big update to my numbers, but one that is important here.
On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:18 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > The subset of tree topology where a consumer places ones router behind > another router is *extremely* common. Statistics I saw several years ago > suggested that probably about 60% of ADSL customers in the US use this > topology. The most common cause for this topology is where the service > provider supplies a free ADSL router with a single port to a subscriber, > and the subscriber then puts their own multi-port router behind that > router. The ADSL router is configured to do the PPPoE, and is also > configured to automatically provide whatever public IP address it gets > to whatever is behind it (via DHCPv4, as a sort of automatic DMZ > function -- the ADSL router also uses that public IP address for its > needs). The ADSL router is often set to provide only that one address, > and not to support a full network of devices. Which is why consumers are > forced to use their own router. This also tends to be how VoIP router + > consumer's wireless router topology works. > > I'm sure some people would like to argue as to why this is bad, or it > shouldn't be done. I'm not going to get into that argument. That > argument is irrelevant. The fact is that it's very, very common. > > I agree with those who say that we *don't* need to make sure IPv4 works > everywhere that IPv6 works. > But I think it's an absolute requirement that IPv6 MUST work everywhere > that IPv4 works. > > And this is a very common case where IPv4 works. When going to IPv6, the > ADSL router will also be the device that establishes the IPv6 > connection. Because the credentials are the same as for IPv4, and the > secondary router doesn't have those credentials. And the consumer forgot > the credentials long ago, and doesn't remember how to configure this > stuff anyway. > > IMO, I believe that the best approach would be to solve tree > generically. Which means that the probability of "tree network" would > actually be "common, perhaps 30th percentile" (dividing my "60% in ADSL > networks" by 2). > Barbara > >> -----Original Message----- >> On 10/7/11 12:48 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >>> I suggested that the probability of use of each of the scenarios on >> slide 4 were >>> single router network: 90th percentile >>> tree network: unusual >>> multi-router: perhaps 5th percentile >>> multihomed: unusual >> >> Fred, >> >> are the above numbers based on any survey data? >> >> Reason I'm asking is that I have two consumer devices with IPv4 NAT in >> my home (a VoIP box and a backup device) where the instructions said: >> 1. Insert between or existing router (or PC if you have no router) and >> the DSL/cable modem >> 2. Insert between your PC and your existing router (or modem if you >> have >> no router) >> >> Those consumer instructions naturally result in a daisy-chain of IPv4 >> RGs/NATs, which is a subset of a tree topology. >> >> I can't be the only person who have a VoIP box or a Time Capsule. >> >> Erik >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
