| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On 07/01/2017 05:38 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | > For example, Rogers@home (the first broadband service for consumers in my | > area) I'm wrong. Rogers Wave was the first in my area (1997 or 1998, I think). It was rebranded in 2000 to Rogers @ Home. | These days, I get a /56 prefix from Rogers. I'm not sure why I don't get IPv6 from Rogers. I intend to look into that -- probably I've misconfigured something on my gateway (a PC running CentOS 7; the cable modem is running in bridge mode). My IPv4 /24 is globally assigned. That's not going to happen with IPv6. | > Pretty soon people wanted to run LANs at home BUT they were Microsoft LANs | > -- not safe in public. So naturally a broadband router-with-NAT made a | > lot of sense. | | Back in those days, Microsoft networks did not use IP. I recall | reading, while at IBM, what went into making it IP compatible. (I had | access to a lot of technical info, when I worked at IBM.) Was that still true in 1997? I thought by Windows for Workgroups 3.11 had a TCP/IP stack and Windows 95 must have (but I didn't use Windows). | > NAT actually damages the internet's original design. Nodes are peers, not | > clients or servers. But only initiators (clients, roughly speaking) can | > be behind NAT. So many protocols have had to be butchered to survive NAT. | > | Yep, you may recall the days when FTP wouldn't work through NAT. Right. But part of that is that FTP was a very early protocol and was not designed that well. Even an FTP client can't survive NAT without the NATting box having special-purpose code to rewrite things inside the FTP packets. | However, the address limitation of IPv4 was recognized well over 20 | years ago and led to the development of IPv6. As I mentioned, I first | heard of it in 1995. You may want to see what Vint Cerf has to say | about it. He's been regretting 32 bit addresses for many years. Of course IPv6 is a Good Thing. But change is hard, especially if one sees no immediate personal benefit. I think that it is even worse that we don't use DNSSec. The security implications of not securing DNS seem enormous. And while listing currently lost causes, I really wish we'd gotten to Opportunistic Encryption. | Incidentally, I first heard about NAT when I saw a dial up NAT router, | at Computer Fest in 1996. I miss Computer Fests. | Also, at IBM, I had 5 static IPv4 addresses, 1 for my computer and 4 for | testing in my work. I similarly had 5 SNA addresses. Back then, my | computer's address was 9.29.146.147. I got my /24 before I had a broadband connection. I think that it was in the late 1980s when I was pondering what IP addresses to stick on my 2-node LAN. I didn't want to use an RFC 1918 address (this was before RFC 1918 or even 1597). So I naively asked for some IPs and got them. It was many years before they were actually routed from the internet to my LAN.