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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott Leibrand writes:

> We definitely will have to see how it shapes up in the US.  In Japan,
> where they actually have IPv6 deployed to end users, it looks like most
> ISPs are giving out /64's to home users, and /48's to business users:

Looks like IPv6 will be exhausted even sooner than I predicted.

> I doubt it.  There are RFC's (3177) and RIR policies
> (http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six54) that *require* ISPs to
> allocated a /64 or larger unless "it is absolutely known that one and only
> one device is connecting."

See above.

So if I understand correctly, 99.99999999999999999% of the IPv6
address space has already been thrown away.  Why bother going to IPv6
at all?

> What is "correct" rdns?  Is
> adsl-066-156-091-129.sip.asm.bellsouth.net
> "correct"?

The correct rDNS is the one that matches my domain.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]