[112176] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Fri Feb 20 00:49:59 2009
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:49:50 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902200640210.16135@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Do you really want to keep state for hundreds of end user devices in
> your equipment?
>
> In my mind, IPv6 more than ever requires the customer to have their
> own L3 device (which you delegate a /56 to with DHCPv6-PD).
>
> Imagine the size of your TCAM needed with antispoofing ACLs and
> adjacancies when the customer has 100 active IPv6 addresses (remember
> that IPv6 enabled devices often have multiple IPv6 addresses, my
> windows machine regularily grabs 3 for instance).
we do not have to imagine. c & j have both demonstrated the nat scaling
problem when protyping for comcast. that is why the idea of a 'carrier
grade' nat in the core has become man near-edge nats and ds-lite. it is
sorely broken architecture.
randy
