On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 01:38:39PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 11:07:58AM +0530, Imran Patel wrote:
> > On the contrary, it might be useful for transition from IPv4 to IPv6 ;-)
> > IPv6 connection tracking is useful for NAT-PT. However, other options on top
> > of IPv6 conntrack like masquerading, v6-v6 NAT, etc look useless and silly.
> You forget real world. I bet ISPs will continue to only give a single IPv6
> address to their dialup customers, so masquerading will stay ...
But aren't the addressing specs saying that we must consider
each and every router port (which I take dialup servers to be)
as /64 ?
Now to think of that... 64k lines of modem pools can thus be
fitted into a /48, which is what addressing specs say (as I
faintly recall without checking it) that ISPs should issue for
each leased-line customer / corporation.
Once upon a time I considered allocating something like /120
for each dialup user, but things aren't completely defined
in the IETF for dialups of IPv6.
At least Itojun has written a draft for it:
3.1. Address space
It is desired to assign /48 address space, regardless from usage pattern
or size of the downstream site. If it is apparent that the customers
will have a single subnet behind them, /64 allocation may be desirable.
It is to make future renumbering in downstream site easier on ISP
change. /128 assignment MUST NOT be made, as it will promote IPv6-to-
The item is highly related to RIR address allocation recommendations.
The mobile (3GPP) folks will have to consider things more like
that /120 instead of /64, because they have so bloody many
customers, but if they go to /128, that is pure stupidity.
(Although, a /40 should be enough for each mobile operator in
Finland for a long time to come if they issue out static /64
addresses. Issuing dynamic addresses saves the day, of course.)