Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:11:53PM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote: > > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > > of

Re: Nat

We can't get people to use passwords judiciously (create them at all for WiFi, change them, use more than one, etc.) and now you want them to manage networks? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Fischer"

RE: Nat

-Original Message- From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM To: Chuck Church Cc: 'Matthew Petach' ; 'North American Network Operators' Group' Subject: Re: Nat >I have a single CPE

RE: Nat

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Palmer Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:29 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Nat >Depends on how many devices you have on it. Once you start filling your home with Internet of Unpatchable Security Holes

Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:54:49PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Palmer > >Depends on how many devices you have on it. Once you start filling your > >home with Internet of Unpatchable Security Holes devices, having everything > >on a

Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device > to work. Well, if the best practice for CPE routers included as a matter of course the subnets "connected to internet", "local only (e.g. IoT)"

RE: Nat

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If people choose to be the authors of their own misfortunes, that is their choice. I know a good many folks who are not members of NANOG yet have multiple separate L2 and L3 networks to keep the "crap" isolated. > -Original

RE: Nat

> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 > devices >

Re: Nat

Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device to work. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Keith Medcalf" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015

Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 09:23:04PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > of networking folk

Re: Nat

In message <00e801d13b96$873e1120$95ba3360$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > -Original Message- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM > To: Chuck Church > Cc: 'Matthew Petach' ; 'North

Re: Nat

In the real world of service providers and customers, people don't "choose to be the authors". To choose, they would have to know the options. If I were to randomly poll 1000 of our residential customers to ask them about their L2/L3 networks, firewall policies, etc..., they'd have no idea what I

Re: Nat

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we can >> label some of these past decisions as ridiculous and

Re: Nat

> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>> There is little that can be done about much of this

Re: Nat

There's nothing that can really be done about it now and I certainly wasn't able to participate when these things were decided. However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the beginning. We're reserving 64 bits for what's currently a 48 bit number. You can use every

Re: Nat

> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the > beginning. We're reserving 64 bits for what's currently a 48 bit number. You > can use every single MAC address whereas IPS are lost to subnetting

Re: Nat

On 20 December 2015 at 17:57, Mike Hammett wrote: > The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of > subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating 16 bits > worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4 Internet? > Does