On 11/15/12 9:27 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
Chiming in as a consumer... [the views represented are 100% my own, individual,
consumer perspective]
I'm a consumer of wireless service. I hear people engaged in wireless networks saying things like
"Prefix delegation isn't till 3GPP release 10; the best a device can do till then is assume that they
have the prefix advertised by the RA" and "wireless connections will use a single stack -- either
IPv4 or IPv6 but not both". I sure wish I could use wireless as a backup for my home network if I lose
my wireline connections. Of course, with the devices I have (my smart phone for everyday use; I'm too cheap
to go out and get an additional wireless service or specialized data-only device), I'd need to use
"tethering" which is limited to something like 3 devices, that all have to use Wi-Fi. I have more
than 3 devices, and not all Wi-Fi, so what I'd probably do is use this Wi-Fi/Ethernet bridge I have lying
around the house (I've used it at various times to provide Wi-Fi connectivity to devices that don't support
Wi-Fi), and plug the Ethernet side of that into the WAN port of a ro
ut
er. That router looks like a single device from a tethering perspective, and
I can do whatever I want behind it, without, um, permission from anyone else.
But when (single stack) IPv6 gets offered on that tether, that router will only
have a single /128 address. Hmm.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-byrne-v6ops-64share-03 is one proposal.
I'm also a consumer of 2 wireline broadband connections. Each has its own
router. The routers are totally mine. Neither router is supplied by the
associated provider (routers aren't even an option from either provider). They
have no connection to each other (because I buy cheap off-the-shelf consumer
stuff, and cheap consumer stuff does nothing for multihoming today). Both
broadband connections currently support 6rd. From one, I end up with a /64.
From the other I end up with a /60.
I've dedicated one of my wireline services to me (the low bandwidth one with
the /60), and the other one (the high bandwidth with a /64) is for me and
everyone else in my family and the rest of my home network. The printer is
connected to the 2nd, so I have to switch my Wi-Fi connection to the other when
I want to print. How annoying. I have, in the past, put other routers behind
the general home network connection (the one from the /64 provider), like when
I needed a Wi-Fi WEP connection for an ancient TiVo, and, well, for other
reasons. I have various cheap routers lying around the house, so I prefer to
just use them when the need strikes, rather than go and get a new box that can
do it all. With IPv6, I will need new routers, but I'll be going cheap on them,
too. None of the apps behind the 2nd router are sensitive to dual NAT, so
there's no need to do anything other than put them on separate subnets. All
cheap routers support that, and it's pretty easy. Much easier than
m
aking them bridged APs (which has often caused mysterious DNS and
disappearing IPv4 connectivity issues that I never bothered figuring out since
dual NAT worked just fine).
My reasons for having 2 connections aren't all that geeky. My family's Netflix and MMORPG
gaming addictions were impacting my ability to work at home, by using up all the
bandwidth. As my family's home networking "guru", knew I had choices of doing
QoS (which would make me happy but not them, and require a more expensive router that
could do QoS -- I know this because I've seen those boxes at Fry's that say they do QoS),
having a single connection with more bandwidth, or adding a 2nd connection with more
bandwidth. I chose to get a 2nd connection, because it wasn't that costly and provided me
with redundancy, in this era of Internet connectivity as a need rather than a want. I
know I'm not alone in subscribing to multiple broadband services -- several of my
neighbors also work at home (or run businesses from their home) and have redundancy.
I don't know how long the lack of wireless PD delegation will exist, or how
long my wireline IPv6 will be offered via 6rd.
All I know is, this is my world as it currently exists.
Y'all know that "Serenity Prayer" about accepting that which you cannot change,
having the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to know the difference? Well, I
accept that I can't change those access networks. I get what they give me, and I don't
hold my breath waiting for them to change. But I *can* change the devices in my home
network. As long as I don't have to pay a lot to do so.
Anyway, I'd really like it if I could get ISP-provided IPv6 working behind that router
that I describe on the wireless connection (the one that will get a single-stack /128
address behind the tethering device -- and I think I'd rather do IPv6 to IPv6 Internet
endpoints, even if it is NAT66 on the router, rather than go through NAT64 somewhere; and
I really don't want to do "NAT464" to get to IPv4 endpoints behind a
single-stack IPv6 connection). I'd also like to do IPv6 to IPv6 endpoints from behind a
2nd router behind my general-purpose home network router (the one that gets a /64 from
6rd). Right now, I can't, AFAIK. Since I have all of these connections, it would be nice
if I didn't have to physically move between them, but could have them connected together
and just configure a few simple choices to make things work (the way *I* want them to
work -- so I do expect some simple configuration).
Getting my multihoming working is more of a "nice to have" right now, though,
since I've got to keep IPv4 working right, and I don't see anything being done to solve
IPv4 multihoming. I thinks that's something that I won't bother trying to change. The
cascaded router scenario (in the tethered single-stack wireless network and in my general
purpose home network) works today with IPv4. But not with IPv6. That's a problem. The /64
is very real in both of those cases, and breath-holding or crying about it just doesn't
seem to be a very effective approach.
That's my consumer wish list. Thanks for listening. Maybe I'll put this in my
letter to Santa.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Randy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks
I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else
(including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my
resource, so I'll take all they give me. :) It would be nice to have an AT&T,
Verizon, or some other major provider chime in to say they're on board with
the assumptions we're making. Maybe they already have, I've been away
from the list for awhile, or maybe they've indicated this allocation strategy in
some other forum. I'm old school and I'm not used to having publicly
routable address space to burn.
Randy
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
I have a /48 at home, on a retail ISP, right now. I know, one data point does
not a trend make, but it is a proof by example that some ISP is doing that.
Andrew
On 15/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Randy Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their
consumer IPv6 allocation plans? I don't think we should wrap ourselves
around a model that says, "yeah, we need multiple /64s for consumers
because that's the way a particular protocol works (SLAAC). Maybe we need
another method. One /64 for a home network seems like overkill regarding
address space utilization -- A /32 would be overkill. I know some folks think
we have more address space than we'll ever use, but gee....
Randy
On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote:
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can
deal with for now, that a /64 would be big enough
It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow subnetting in the
home/car/small office or whatever.
I don't see the point in working on the /64 case-if that's all we're trying
to accomplish, we've already accomplished it. The interesting work
Homenet is doing is in fact trying to solve the prefix distribution and
automatic setup problem. It's true that this is a hard problem. It's also
true
that if we don't specify a solution, people will attempt to solve it in their
own
ways. And if they do that, we will wind up in the situation that Jim found
himself in with his broken box with its own built-in DHCP server.
BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on
the same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle
the multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case in-
scope. This creates a bit of a problem for legacy apps that do not support
multi-homing, but it also creates the winning situation that if one device is
advertising a provisioning domain that doesn't work, applications that do
correctly handle multi-homing will simply use a different provisioning
domain.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
