[CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Tue Dec 7 10:26:43 UTC 2010
Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam at whitemice.org>

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 17:15 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: 
> > 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.

It isn't.

> 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.

Why?  Things will only work better.  NAT is not some magic sauce, it is
a *HACK*.

> 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. 

Why?  There is no reason.  You are wrong, you do *NOT* need to "continue
that mapping".  That mapping is pointless.

> If IPv6 cannot do that, then I hope Time-Warner continues 
> to ignore it and stays with their current address structure.