Wildcards in reverse DNS

[Clenna Lumina]

Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:25 -0500, dhottinger at harrisonburg.k12.va.us
> wrote:
>> Great for the city.  But if we are an island in the middle of all
>> ipv4 routers, all the traffic has to be encapsulated in ipv4 packets.
>> Hence all speed increases are null because everything suddenly
>> becomes ipv4 instead of ipv6.
>
> The islands will join up. It's a chicken and egg thing. IPv4 started
> out as islands too, don't forget, and it had competition from many
> other protocols, whereas IPv6 has competition really only from IPv4.
>
> People can win a lot from IPv6 without having IPv6 connectivity to the
> Internet. Autoaddressing, IPSEC, no broadcasts, VAST private address
> space, etc.

But what's the point of using it on a Private LAN? It just adds 
confusion and lack of clarity. Not to mention for privat subnets, it'll 
just be overkill. What's wrong with using 10.0.0.0 or 192.168.0.0 or any 
other private subnet?

I find that the *appearance* of an IPv6 address is confusing in and of 
it self. It actually look like an IPX address (maybe a cross between an 
IPX address and a MAC address.) Don't get me wrong, I like HEX, but I 
think it's nto such a good idea to change such a basic idiom... sice 
TCP/IP came out, people have used DEC octets, any one wh oworks with 
networks thinks DEC when thinking of IP addresses... I'd imagine IPv6 
turns that way of thinking inside out and upside down.

Wouldn't it be better to have a better solution that could be somewhat 
compatible with IPv4 so we don't have to get used to something so 
radically different?

>>   I think the main reason they went with ipv6 was
>> because of the availibility of ipv4 addresses.  Although NATING would
>> handle the issue quite well.
>
> NAT is a Bad Thing for the Internet. It is a classic
> treat-the-symptom-not-the-disease response, and while it has saved our
> bacon for now, the waters are still rising...

I disagree. If you think NAT is bad then you don't know how to properly 
use one. For home and busienss LANs, you can have one IP and share it 
among the whole LAN? How is this a BAD thing? It's a money saver. I 
suppose that's a BAD thing too.

>>   I wouldnt think that every device would need a public ip.
>
> Even quite small organisations are running out of *private* address
> space. IPv6 delivers a vast amount of private address space too...

Then they have the wrong class (or length) subnet. I dare you find a 
small organization using a private 10.0.0.0 subnet and is running out of 
them.

> Don't fall for what Richard Dawkins calls the Argument from Personal
> Incredulity. The fact that you don't see it, don't get it, don't
> understand it, don't believe it, down't want it or don't need it
> doesn't prove anything.

Thats exactly what you're doing with NAT, while ignoring it's obvious 
benefits.

> We cannot imagine what things the future will
> dream up to do with almost unlimited address space.

I don't deny it, just probably not with IPv6 as we know it.


>>   Also IPv4 addresses were handed out quite willy
>> nilly.  Some institutions own huge blocks of addresses and dont use
>> them.  I have 3 class C's and only use a fraction of them.  But, I
>> wont give them up.
>
> That's the problem, thanks for being part of it. There are people
> sitting on largely empty /8 (!) and /16 networks who won't give them
> up either.

Sooner or later they will probably need to give part of them up.

You're also forgetting that private space is completely seperate form 
public (Internet) space. Most large chuncks of network space are used by 
ISPs, and hosting companies. Private addresses are only visible to the 
private network. Anyone can sue thme on their own networks. IE, 
192.168.0.0 or 10.0.0.0 can and are used on man MANY private networks.

>>   Although my ISP is really eager for me to give
>> some up.  If the internet continues to grow, IPv6 will just be a
>> stopgap measure.  Those addresses are not infinite.
>
> No, and there are already disturbing signs both of incompetence in
> applying for stupidly large spaces and worse, of incompetence in
> allocating stupidly large spaces. And of outright land-grabbing. The
> US Government, for example, wanted an IPv6 /8 network. All for itself.

How the hell do you eve ndefine how big an IPv6 /8 network is? Deos it 
equate to an IPv4 /8 or is it everything up to the last octet? The way 
IPv6, it's eanything but clear and this is one of the many problems that 
seems to be stiffling IPv6 and why most just don't use it.

> We will need to be *extremely* profligate with addresses to put a dent
> in that vast address space. Sadly some people are already being
> extremely profligate.

You you don't think any of it at all is at least partly do to the 
inherently confusing nature of IPv6? (At least when compared to IPv4.)