[118216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Oct 14 05:54:48 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:54:02 +1300
In-Reply-To: <200910140623.n9E6NGO0052696@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 14/10/2009, at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> DS-Lite is there for when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to
> hand one to each customer. Many customers don't need a unique IPv4
> address, these are the ones you switch to DS-Lite. Those that do
> require a unique IPv4 you leave on full dual stack for as long as
> you can.
The authors of DS-lite say it's because running a dual stack network
is hard.
You clearly don't share that view , so in your view what's wrong with
dual stack with IPv4for everyone then, whether they need a unique
address or not?
DS-lite requires CGN, so does dual stack without enough IPv4 addresses.
This is probably the wrong forum for a DS-lite debate. I'm sure people
have a use for it, they actually might have gear that can only do IPv4
OR IPv6 but not both or something.
My problem with it is that it's being seen as a solution for a whole
lot of people, when in reality it's a solution for a small number of
people.
Thanks for the point about the tunnel brokers though, I missed that,
I'll update this tomorrow with any suggestions I get before then.
--
Nathan Ward
