On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Tony Li wrote:
> Sorry, ISPs charge based on providing a *service*. Yes, that
> includes bandwidth (and generally flat bandwidth, not usage) and also
Actually, bandwidth USAGE is frequently charged for in many parts of the
world. In the US, it is common for small businesse
> > yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to
> > subnet.
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> You're actually expecting folks who couldn't set up VCR timers to
> configure _subnets_?
ISPs ship a DSL termination box with ethernet and wifi interface to
customer
When they do, they are violating the premises on which they received
their allocation. As such any ISP which is not willing to provide
a /48*
to an end-user should get their IPv6 allocation revoked by the RIR.
Could you please site chapter and verse? Here's what I can find:
http://www.
>> variable length addresses are a better idea than it appears at first
>> glance. they do bring certain difficulties with them, especially when
>> trying to do fiber-speed switching in hardware.
> Poppycock. Hardware for switching variable length addresses
> first showed up about 15 YEARS ago.
>
>> perhaps, but one might also reasonably expect 2^0 networks to be
>> insufficient.
>
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I respectfully disagree. Given that you
> can reasonably build a flat subnet of 1000 hosts today, it does
> not seem like an unreasonable entry point. Mom & Pop 6-pack
> h
variable length addresses are a better idea than it appears at first
glance. they do bring certain difficulties with them, especially when
trying to do fiber-speed switching in hardware.
Poppycock. Hardware for switching variable length addresses
first showed up about 15 YEARS ago. This is
Keith,
perhaps, but one might also reasonably expect 2^0 networks to be
insufficient.
At the risk of repeating myself, I respectfully disagree. Given that
you
can reasonably build a flat subnet of 1000 hosts today, it does
not seem like an unreasonable entry point. Mom & Pop 6-pack
have
I retract what I wrote in a previous message about DFZ routers
needing to look at 64 bits of the packet's destination address.
I misunderstood the text:
> LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites.
> All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of
> .25.
>
>
> The only way to do what you want is to effectively have a variable
> length address. While there were a few crazy advocates of this many
> years ago, they were shouted down.
variable length addresses are a better idea than it appears at first
glance. they do bring certain difficulties with the
>> The issue is that IPv6 is architected to give sufficient addresses to
>> end users, and by screwing with this ARIN is harming both deployability
>> of IPv6, manaegability of IPv6, and usability of IPv6 by applications.
>
>
> First, there was never an architectural goal to give end users
> 'suff
Jeroen...
So I guess Comcast shouldn't be allowed IPv6 then? They refuse to provide
home users a static IP unless they upgrade to their $100+ business plans
which is quite unreasonable for home use... It pisses me off but it's all
part of their TOS game in which they state that "Public servers are
Tony Li wrote:
[..]
> Most MSOs would VERY much like to
> sell you a service with a fraction of an IPv4 address today, but they
> really haven't
> figured out how they could do so technically. For v6, they will always
> sell a service
> with a minimal amount of address, regardless of ARIN policie
a clever router/switch could certainly do a lot without subnetting.
Indeed. If you Google around a bit for "MAC table size", I think that
you'll find it hard to find an advertised size less than 1K entries,
and that's
for a shrink-wrapped 8 port switch.
I'll believe that entry level boxe
Keith,
It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to
customers one at a time, ...
The issue is that IPv6 is architected to give sufficient addresses to
end users, and by screwing with this ARIN is harming both
deployability
of IPv6, manaegability of IPv6, and usability o
> Keith,
>
> On Aug 18, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> > yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to
> > subnet.
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> You're actually expecting folks who couldn't set up VCR timers to
> configure _subnets_?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Terry Gray wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > one of the areas in which I think the IPv4 design failed is that it
> > didn't really follow the catenet model. it was not possible to extend
> > the network from any point. and this is part of what led to N
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Keith Moore wrote:
> one of the areas in which I think the IPv4 design failed is that it
> didn't really follow the catenet model. it was not possible to extend
> the network from any point. and this is part of what led to NATs,
> because there really was a need to be able
>> yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to
>> subnet. particularly when there are so many different media
>> competing for the home network spaceit would be reasonable to
>> have a subnet for each medium.
>>
> I originally agreed with you on that. However, given m
--On Friday, 17 August, 2007 16:18 -0700 SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...
>> message and not the transport. If the primary concern is
>> communications between a financial institution with which the
>> user already has an account (or equivalent relationship) and
>> that user, we don't even ha
>> yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to subnet.
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> You're actually expecting folks who couldn't set up VCR timers to
> configure _subnets_?
no, I'm expecting subnets to be automatically configured by the border
router. when the prefix assig
Joel Jaeggli writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
IMNSHO, the sensible time is to do it when the relevant RIR runs out
of addresses. I'm sure the IETF can get a couple of thousand IPv4
addresses for temporary use even years after that time, but it would
seem a little hypocritical to do so.
The netw
Noel Chiappa writes:
Guess that's the only way you can get people to convert to IPv6, huh -
cut off their IPv4 access?
Isn't that exactly what'll happen in a few years, and why IPv6 exists at all?
Arnt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www
Keith,
On Aug 18, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to
subnet.
You're kidding, right?
You're actually expecting folks who couldn't set up VCR timers to
configure _subnets_?
Regards,
-drc
___
> From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well lot's of people still think things like "why would home users ever
> subnet" ...
> At some point you stop wanting to have all those devices on the same
> network if for no other reason than to keep your multicast HD video
> st
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:04:54 -0400
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure what your point is -- I took Keith's comment to mean
> >> that home NATs with v6 were completely unacceptable.
> >
> >
> > /64's do NOT imply that there's NAT functionality involved, just
> > that there'
>> I'm not sure what your point is -- I took Keith's comment to mean that
>> home NATs with v6 were completely unacceptable.
>
>
> /64's do NOT imply that there's NAT functionality involved, just that
> there's
> a single subnet, yes?
yes, but it's unreasonable to expect a home user to not need to
Tony Li wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>
>>> It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to
>>> customers one at a time, I suppose that's acceptable if not necessarily
>>> desirable and will probably still result in the use of nat
>>> mechanisms in
>>
27 matches
Mail list logo
