Text 10478, 149 rader
Skriven 2013-09-26 14:25:35 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: IPv4 and IPv6
=====================
Hello mark,

On Wednesday September 25 2013 15:11, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> My perimeter firewall in my router works just as well on IPv4
 MvdV>> as on IPv6, despite the fact that for IPv6 there is no NAT.

 ml> you are using a router box that has not really need needed...
 ml> marketing foisted routers on everyone and got them to believe that
 ml> they have been required for their connections when they have not in
 ml> the huge majority of cases...

Nobody "foisted" a router on me. And I know that there is more than one way
that leads to Rome. But I find that small piece of dedicated hardware - that
needs just a few Watts -  a convenient and economic way of interfacing my LAN
to the InterNet. Electricity is expensive here. I do not need another 100+ Watt
crate to run 24/7 like you use an old machine for the purpose...

 MvdV>> NAT is a kludge that breaks end to end connectivity.

 ml> i do not agree... especially with it being a kludge...

Of course it is a kludge. The internet was originally designed around the idea
that every machine had its own globally unique IP address. Well, that model
broke down because there were not enough addresses as we all know and so they
came up with the idea to have more than one machine share an IP address and NAT
was born.

But a kludge it is. A kludge to circumvent the shortage of addresses. The
/proper/ way to deal with the problem would have been to migrate to IPv6
fifteen years ago...

 ml> as for breaking end to end connectivity, the hacker infestation would
 ml> be much much worse than it already is without it...

A decent firewall will do the same or a better job that a NAT. Without giving
up end to end connectivity.

 ml>> all that i have to do is to make sure that my internal networks
 ml>> are not using the same IP range as my carrier is using...

 MvdV>> When you have NAT behind NAT, some things will not work any
 MvdV>> more...

 ml> sure they will... i maintain numerous configurations that are double
 ml> and even triple NAT...

Than obviously you are not using those applications that have problems with it.

 ml>> i pay for a connection to the internet, period... not a
 ml>> connection per device... it is none of their business what or how
 ml>> many deivces i have...

 MvdV>> With IPv6 they will have no more or no less information on the
 MvdV>> number of devices than with IPv4.

 ml> bullshit... with IPv6, every device will be given an IPv6 number...
 ml> that, in itself, will give them the information with which to charge
 ml> for each and every device connected...

As there can - and often will - be more that one IPv6 address per device, there
is not a 1:1 relation between the number of IPv6 addresses in use and the
number of devices.  Windows uses randomized addresses for outgoing connections.

 ml> yet again, it all comes down to corporate greed... it will happen if
 ml> users allow it to happen... like sheep to the slaughter...

So don't you have this thing called "competition" over there? Here it has been
common practise for years to connect many devices to a household InterNet
connection. The ISPs know this and encourage it. There has never been any
indication that ISPs want to charge per device. And if they tried they would
not get away with it. The first one to try would lose customers to the
competition....

 MvdV>> I think your fears are unfounded. If your ISP wants to charge
 MvdV>> you on the number of devices, they can do that now. Why should
 MvdV>> they change that policy when you go IPv6?

 ml> they can NOT do that now because they have no way of knowing or
 ml> counting my devices...

Or so you think...

 MvdV>> CGNAT won't give you access to the port forwarding tables. No
 MvdV>> more servers...

 ml> i know this... but it is, again, no different than NAT that is in use
 ml> now... as far as servers go, there again is yet another reach into
 ml> your pockets to extract more of your $$$...

IPv4 adresses have become a scarse commodity. So the price goes up. That is not
greed, that is the Law of supply and demand.

 PQ>>> We would have to surrender our public IPv4 address first, of
 PQ>>> course.

 ml>> depending on one's service, they may never know they no longer
 ml>> have a WAN IPv4 address...

Indeed, my auntie Beatrice may never notice because she just does a bit of
browsing and some e-mail.

 MvdV>> Every one running a server will soon find out...

 ml> it won't stop the servers from running and doing their work...

That won't do much good if they are unaccesseable...

 ml> it will only stop those on the outside of the local carrier from
 ml> being able to make the connection...

I suspect it will be limited to those on the same subnet, which may be a much
smaller group than the entire client base of that ISP.

Apart from the difficulty of knowing the IP address of the server...

 MvdV>> 100.64.0.0/10 is reserved for CGNAT. If ISPs use that range,
 MvdV>> there will not be a conflict with LAN's using RFC1918
 MvdV>> addresses.

 ml> true... however, i have (and many others as well) been connected to
 ml> ISPs that use RFC-1918 for all their client connections... this CGNAT
 ml> is no different other than being restricted to another address
 ml> range... not to mention that that address range is pretty small when
 ml> all things are considered

It is large enough. CGNAT does not mean that all customers of that same ISP
will share one and the same IP. The number is limited because the number of
ports is limited to 2^16. Some applications use hundreds of ports at the same
time, so sharing one IP with 1000 customers invokes the risk of running out of
ports. They probably do not go beyond 100 or 200 customers per IP. So they cut
the customer base in small chunks and give each chunk its own subnet with its
own public IP and those subnets can reuse the private adresses.

 ml>  (how many smartphone users are there? how many cars will be connected
 ml> in the future? how many household appliances will be connected? how
 ml> many security systems? and so on)...

And they will use IPv6...

 ml> 10.0.0.0/8 is 4x as large as that so-called reserved range, which was,
 ml> BTW, used for normal traffic not all that long ago ;)

I know.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)