On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:01:39 -0700
Joel Jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com> wrote:
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 end systems.
that's COMPLETELY unacceptable.
Well lot's of people still think things like "why would home users
ever subnet" but when you walk into a decent electronics superstore
these days you can buy:
terabytes of network attached storage
HD video streamers
wireless voip handsets or dual mode wifi/cellular phones
building control and security systems that plug into ethernet or hang
out on your wifi
vlan capable managed switches that cost $150
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
streams from clobbering your ip phones, and around that same point the
needs of a household of 2-6 people plus visitors start to look a lot
like those of a heavily technology enabled small business. Have two or
more wage earners that work for large enterprises and have vpn tunnels
and associated network peripherals and you have issues that can keep
consultants employeed for some time...
This is a fairly unusual problem right now, but it won't be for long.
I'm not sure what your point is -- I took Keith's comment to mean that
home NATs with v6 were completely unacceptable.
I agree with you on the desirability of home routers, though it's going
to be an interesting challenge to build "fire and forget" boxes for the
house. Of course, I'm the kind of guy who already has 3 (and sometimes
4) segments on my home LAN, so I suppose I really need home routers
that speak OSPF....
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf