Hi,
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>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
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