On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:01:39 -0700 Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf