Hello Matti,
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:39:19PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I'm actually with Alexey on IPv6 <-> IPv6 masquerading. It's a horrible
> > > hack. If your ISP gives you only a single IPv6 address then they really need
> > > to be beaten with a the pointed end of a cluestick.
> >
> > Expect one address. They can charge lots extra for business service if
> > you want several. Its about service differentiation not about cluesticks
> No, that isn't the only driving force behind it.
> (My ISP access hat on..)
>
> Primary problem is that supplying dynamic addresses is
> nice and easy, especially when dialup boxes are all
> over the country behind routed IP network. Compare
> that to STATIC addresses (or subnets), which would
> end up at different call sites with each call,
> a nightmare. Supplying static addresses at static
> locations is possible, of course, but costs more at
> the telephony network, than terminating all calls as
> close to the callers as possible..
>
> I have been talking with one hardware vendor about
> supplying slightly different IPv6 dynamic pool
> management, than what the IPv4 has.
> For IPv4 there is typically pool base address, and
> count of how many addresses are available starting
> from it. (Or as syntax is at another machine, the
> end-address of the address range.)
> For IPv6 there could be an increment parameter (e.g.
> "16") for the addresses, although I have not yet
> figured how to use such dynamically allocated subnets..
>
> There are addresses, but HOW can you use them ?
> Renumber the network every time your dialup connector
> hooks to the ISP ? (Ethernet auto-config doesn't
> quite work unless you are supplied with /64 subnet,
> while these things I have been playing with supply
> just a /124 -- one of the reasons is that we want
> to pre-supply IPv6 reversers for pool addresses.
> That isn't quite so simple for /64 subnet...)
>
> Single addresses are *so* much simpler...
Speaking as an Network engineer, Ha !
There isn't anything easier than setting up routing (given clue
on both ends) . Dynamic on the other hand requires a great deal
of consideration & forthought on whether to use a Dhcp / Bootp /
allow the terminal server to do the allocations /... ,
Right now I have a class 'C of my own . I dialin At -my- prodivers
and tell him (them if I so desire) where my routes should go .
Zebra / Gated / Whoever the next one is , IS YOUR FRIEND .
Routing protocols are the only thing that stand between endusers
and the internet . they(routing protocols) can/should/will be
used eventually to cure the problem you are speaking about .
Nothing else is in the way of the end user BUT GREAD . Twyl, JimL
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
