David Sommerseth wrote: > On 06/12/10 15:29, Todd Rinaldo wrote: >> On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:27 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: >> >>> On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote: >>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift <redshift at pandora.be> wrote: >>>>> On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote: >>>>>> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm), >>>>> Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs. >>>>> >>>>> I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private use, is there even such a concept in IPv6? >>>> I think that site-local ("fec0:: - fef::") is the ipv6 >>>> more-or-less-equivalent of ipv4 private addresses. >>> Yes, that's correct and it is deprecated. >>> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt> >>> >>> With IPv6 there is plenty of addresses for everyone so you basically use >>> your own assigned official IPv6 address space and setup your own private >>> /64 net and block that subnet in your firewalls. >>> >>> Another thing, there is no NAT and it will not be implemented as we know >>> it in IPv4. To call NAT a security feature is also a faulty >>> understanding. As NAT only prevents access from outside to some >>> computer inside a network which is NAT'ed. This restriction and >>> filtering is the task of the firewall anyway, which does the NAT anyway. >>> >>> NAT basically just breaks a lot of protocols and enforces complex >>> firewalls which needs to understand a lot of different protocols to be >>> able to do things correctly. Which often do not work as well as it could. >>> >> I've heard this before but It's always confused me. Admittedly I >> haven't had a chance to look at the spec. If we're saying that >> everyone's going to have the same private subnet, then we're saying >> that all the private subnets are going to have to be NAT-ed >> aren't they? > > This can be a bit confusing, especially if you see this with "IPv4 > eyes". In IPv6, it basically is no such things as a private subnet (range). > > When you contact your ISP to get a IPv6 subnet, they will most probably > give you a /48 network. That means you will have a IPv6 prefix which is > unique. That is a reference to all _your_ IPv6 networks. > > Then you will normally segment this /48 subnet into more /64 networks. > A /48 subnet gives you 65536 /64 networks. So the IPv6 prefix will be > something like: > > aaaa:aaaa:aaaa:bbbb::/64 > > the 'aaaa:aaaa:aaaa' part is the prefix your ISP will provide you, and > this is the first 48bits of the IPv6 address. The 'bbbb' part is up to > you to decide what will be, and that's the next 16 bits of the address > scope. So 48 + 16 = 64 bits. And 2^16 = 65536. > > And this is all you need to know about IPv6 addressing. Really! That's > it. No network addresses, no broadcast addresses. Just pure usable > IPv6 addresses. > > (You may of course make even more subnets below /64, but that's usually > not recommended at - especially with auto-configured networks) > > So then ... the next phase. As everyone who gets a /48 nets should have > it flexible enough to setup private networks, the firewall just needs to > block completely in-going traffic to a /64 net defined by the admins as > private. It can further be decided if this /64 net should have access > to IPv6 addresses outside this local network. Again this is just a > firewall rule and nothing more - allow or reject/drop. > > And then, the former proposed site-local subnet makes pretty much no > sense, as IPv6 does not support NAT. As this network would not be able > to communicate across a router/firewall. This subnet (fec0:: - fef::) > should not be routed anywhere. And without NAT, it can't escape the > subnet at all anyway. > > So, spending one or two or 100s /64 subnets with public IPv6 addresses > which is completely blocked in a firewall will serve exactly the same > purpose as a site-local subnet. But this /64 net may get access to the > Internet *if* allowed by the firewall. This is not possible with > site-local at all. And of course, this is without NAT in addition. > > I hope this made it a little bit clearer. Clear as mud. If I understand you correctly, I have to say that IPv6 is broken by design. I have a double handful of computers on my home network. Each of them needs access to the Internet to get updates to the OS and various applications. However, I do *NOT* want each and every one of them to show up as a unique address outside of my network. With IP4 and m0n0wall running as the NAT, they are all translated to the single IP address that Roadrunner assigned to my Firewall. I need to continue that mapping. If IPv6 cannot do that, then I hope Time-Warner continues to ignore it and stays with their current address structure. Bob McConnell N2SPP