mailing list archives
RE: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
From: "Jamie Bowden" <jamie () photon com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:26:36 -0400
Oh please, you know practical, operational, and security concerns mean nothing next to the beauty and purity of the
perfect network protocol design.
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra () baylink com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
----- Original Message -----
From: "james machado" <hvgeekwtrvl () gmail com>
Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in IPv4
made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting.
An argument I've been making right along. Concern about what's happening
network-wise outside my edge router belongs to my edge router, *and no
other device on my LAN* should be held hostage by problems there.
That's my best practice advice (to my clients, at least), and if IPv6
makes that impossible, well, then, things are gonna get messy, until someone
figures out a way around it, cause I'm sure I'm not the only person who
views it that way...
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274