On 7/23/2010 9:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you > may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons. > > It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about > many small sensors, actuators and so. > > The ISP "new" business is not just about more bandwidth but also about > offering new services, which they can charge for. Those services are very > difficult to deploy in NATed scenarios such as the one that we have today > with IPv4. > > And I'm not saying to forget about what we have learn with DHCP, in fact > DHCPv6 has many new and good features, but for many reasons, > autonconfiguration is good enough, and much more simple. > > Regards, > Jordi > Jordi - the real issues are in guaranteed delivery of certain evidence-grade services and what it takes to offer those.
Todd > > >> From: Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> >> Reply-To: <matt...@matthew.at> >> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:22:53 -0700 >> To: Jordi Palet MartÃnez <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> >> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course >> >> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >>> And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so >>> let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to >>> redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the >>> bits for routing ? >>> >> I *really* don't understand why a /32 isn't big enough for a home. Even >> if you insist on SAA for getting the addresses. How many IPv6 devices is >> the guy going to plug in / attach wirelessly anyway? >>> And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should propose this to 6man >>> at the IETF. >>> >> The same IETF that until just a few months ago believed that DCCP and >> SCTP would be wildly successful as new IP protocols because NATs don't >> matter? >>> You're not getting it. Autoconfiguration is a very good feature. >> No, no it isn't. It goes on the list of "interesting ideas for IPv6 that >> were good enough to be implemented, and refined (in this case as DHCP), >> for IPv4". Insisting on SAA is basically saying "well, you know all >> those things we learned when we deployed DHCP... lets go ahead and >> forget them and pretend that home machine OS vendors *and* IT >> departments are wrong. >>> More bits >>> for the user to subnet means more business for smart ISPs who don't want to >>> sell addresses but instead services and applications much more easier to >>> deploy thanks to a uniform /48 ways to address all end sites. >>> >> I fail to see how a household, even a really big one, is going to attach >> more bandwidth-consuming devices (which I presume is how the ISP does >> more business) to a link with a /48 on it vs a link with a /64 on it. A >> /64 allows more machines in your house than today's entire Internet has >> connected. Unless you have a new plan for electric power delivery to the >> home, there's no need to go beyond that. >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > >
