[141441] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jun 8 09:14:20 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikm0bDUwbKoHjtgvnpNagQoF1bRjshSS00Tnugzi2CTtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:05:23 -0700
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Owen,
>>>>=20
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>>>>> LSN is required when access providers come across the following =
two
>>>>> combined constraints:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 1. No more IPv4 addresses to give to customers.
>>>>> 2. No ability to deploy those customers on IPv6.
>>>>=20
>>>> 2 has little bearing on need of LSN to access v4. Insufficient =
amount
>>>> of IPv4 addresses =3D> LSN required.
>>>>=20
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>=20
>>> No, if you have the option of deploying the customers on IPv6, you =
don't
>>> need LSN.
>>>=20
>>> The problem is that until the vast majority of content is =
dual-stack, you can't
>>> deploy customers on IPv6 without IPv4.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> cough cough NAT64/DNS64 ...
>>=20
>=20
> cough DS-lite.
DS-lite is a slightly less pathological form of LSN. It's still LSN, it =
just removes
the second NAT at the CPE.
Owen
