[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
About address allocating
Nick Sayer wrote:
> Lucky Green wrote:
> Having every one of those providers having to get a /48 for every
> single modem they have is ludicrous overkill. The way the PPP RFCs
> for IPv6 read, the path of least resistance is to give each modem
> _bank_ a /64. The prefix is sufficient to route to a specific bank.
> The dialup link will provide its own EID, which has the added benefit
> of making hijack-by-connection-reuse less likely and means that such
> dynamic users who dial the same bank probably _do_ have a static IP
> address after all (since their EID is not likely/supposed > to
> No, we don't have to be misers with v6 address space like we did
> under v4. And yes, I think that anyone with a dedicated link of any
> kind really ought to get a /48. Even dialup customers who do the
> dedicated-dialup trick ought to.
> But I have no problem drawing the line at on-demand-dynamic-dialup
> customers. Just because a resource is plentiful doesn't _require_
> us to waste it.
I agree with this 100%. The US Robotics Total Control can now manage
16 incoming T1s in a single cabinet. Even then, that's only 384
modems. A /64 should be sufficient for those. There are plenty of
addresses for people who need subnets, and the management for each
(single) modem is fairly easy. Autodiscovery should take care of