Subj : Re: List of IPv6 nodes
To   : Michiel van der Vlist
From : Tony Langdon
Date : Fri Jan 21 2022 10:27 am

-=> On 01-19-22 12:36, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

 MvV> We also have to get rid of IPv4 think. On top of that list are:

 MvV> 1) NAT is not a security feature.

True, and a packet filter defaulting to blocking incoming traffic (like a lot
of IPv6 routers do) has the same net effect, without the NAT ugliness.

 MvV> 2) There is no shortage of addresses. Address space is no longer a
 MvV> scarce commodity.

Good point.  Anyone got the figures for how many /56 prefixes are available? 
All the estimates of abailable address space focus on single addresses, but
really, /64s should be considered in these analyses, because that's effectively
the smallest (convenient) LAN segment intended to be assigned.

 MvV> With the mind still in IPv4 think mode, giving out a /56 to everyone
 MvV> while the vast majority will get no further than using 1 or 2% of that
 MvV> looks like a terrible waste.

 MvV> Then consider that "waste" is only an issue if there is shortage. With
 MvV> IPv6 there is no shortage of addreses. Thinking "waste" is IPv4 think.
 MvV> We have to get rid of that.

That's why I'd like some more relevant figures, taking into account current
allocation practices (e.g. /56 per resifential customer, /64 minimum subnet
allocation).


.... Taglines: the toilet-stall walls of BBSdom.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52

.