ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re:StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

2006-03-28 13:38:54

From: Markku Savela [mailto:msa(_at_)burp(_dot_)tkv(_dot_)asdf(_dot_)org] 

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>

The other side of the coin is the fact that many devices will 
effectively require no more than a /128 because of the way they 
connect up to the network. For example cell phones will be 
serviced on 
plans where the subscription fee is per device. Verizon, T-mobile, 
cingular need no more than one /64 each to service those networks.

Uhh...

- I thought they actually do (should) give /64 per phone, so that
  standar IPv6 address configuration works (you get IPv6 link local
  and global addresses from RA).

- phone can use more that one address if you use the phone connection
  to link your local network to the global internet without NAT,
  (needs some "nasty" ND-proxy hacks though..)

All Symbian phones have full IPv4/IPv6 dual stack on them already.

My point was that even if we do run out of /64s at some point the last few
remaining /64s can be made to go one heck of a long way.

Even if we do eventually exhaust the address space we can fix up the
problems easily enough at the internetwork level. 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>