TZUTC: 1100
MSGID: 2161.fido-ipv6@3:633/410 264f7cb8
REPLY: 2:280/5555 61e7fa89
PID: Synchronet 3.17c-Linux  Nov  3 2019 GCC 4.6.3
TID: SBBSecho 3.10-Linux r3.146 Nov  3 2019 GCC 4.6.3
CHRS: ASCII 1
-=> 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
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
 * Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 90/1 105/81 106/201 120/340 123/131 129/330 153/7715
SEEN-BY: 226/30 229/110 317 400 424 426 428 550 664 700 240/5832 249/206
SEEN-BY: 266/512 282/1038 301/1 317/3 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45
SEEN-BY: 633/267 280 281 410 412 416 509 640/1384 712/848 770/1
PATH: 633/410 280 229/426