Hi, On 11/02/2021 13:00, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:

...

The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is ipv6-only, afaik. So that answers the question of how to scale networks past what can be done with 1918 space. Although why the phones would need to talk

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:50:56 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> [...] On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote> directly to each other, I can't imagine.

- P2P applications? - (because I'm tethering,) enable customers to share a service to other people without relying to (many) external parties? (actually, that was the purpose of the Internet since the beginning if I'm right) - ...

I also reject the premise that any org, no matter how large, needs to uniquely number every endpoint. When I was doing IPAM for a living, not allowing the workstations in Tucson to talk to the printers in Singapore was considered a feature. I even had one customer who wanted the printers to all have the same (1918) IP address in every office because they had a lot of sales people who traveled between offices who couldn't handle reconfiguring every time they visited a new location. I thought it was a little too precious personally, but the customer is always right. :)

Here comes the DNS imho if it was accepted by the customer. Same result, better management and flexibility...

Sure, it's easier to give every endpoint a unique address, but it is not a requirement, and probably isn't even a good idea. Spend a little time designing your network so that the things that need to talk to each other can, and the things that don't have to, can't. I did a lot of large multinational corporations using this type of design and never even came close to exhausting 1918 space.

Here comes your firewall rules and all your ACL ... easier with IPv6 imho -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/