[101251] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Mon Dec 24 12:11:32 2007
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
CC: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200712241308.lBOD85RA002993@aurora.sol.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe Greco wrote:
>> It's likely that the device may choose to nat when they cannot obtain a
>> prefix... pd might be desirable but if you can't then the alternative is
>> easy.
>
> I thought we were all trying to discourage NAT in IPv6.
You/we are... Which is why you really need PD, and cpe needs to be able
to hand out /64s on request to downstream devices. Not surprisingly that
will drive subnetting in the home. presently, plugging in more
gateway/router devices results in multiple layers of nat and huge
amounts of unnecessary complexity in the home network.
> Clearly, NAT
> solves the problem ... while introducing 1000 new ones. :-/
Sure, we don't have a reasonable mechanism for ipv4 devices to pull
address space out of thin air. We do have one in ipv6. This is a problem
that equipment makers (as much as randy hates them) will have to
address. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how they will
address it given a lack of alternatives.
> ... JG
