On 28/01/07, Brian Candler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:36:38AM -0800, Joe wrote:
> whats sad is how many people will never let go of NAT after they migrate
> to ipv6.
It's not sad; for many people it would be essential. How would you like your
48-bit MAC address to become a permanent cookie, following you about
whenever you access the Internet? And if you need to change ISP, and
therefore get a new address allocation, many people would rather just put in
some NAT at the border than take the pain of network renumbering (which IPv6
doesn't make any easier than IPv4)
I don't see your point here -- IPv6 has a notion of prefix. ISP should
give your site a /64 (or /48 if you are a medium-size company with
many sites), and then the rest of your address space will be the same
regardless of the prefix.
I.e. as far as DNS is concerned, you just do a simple search and
replace. And as far as the reverse zone modifications are concerned,
then they are so trivial that it's not even funny.
[...]
Nope. One year ago, France Telecom applied for, and was granted, a /19 of
IPv6 address space. Since the first three bits are fixed in the unicast
addressing plan, this means that a single ISP has already taken 1/65,536th
of the total available.
Last I checked, France Telecom was an NSP, not a "single ISP". So I
don't see a problem for them having a /19, as long as they will not
request any more IPv6 allocations within the foreseeable future.
Cheers,
Constantine.
