[151137] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Chown)
Mon Mar 12 15:52:29 2012
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <A0AA6987-97ED-460E-8FAE-E2EF96297D9C@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:50:41 +0000
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I know my view is unpopular, but, I really would rather see PI made =
inexpensive and readily available than see NAT brought into the IPv6 =
mainstream. However, in my experience, very few residential customers =
make use of that 3G backup port.
So what assumptions do you think future IPv6-enabled homenets might make =
about the prefixes they receive or can use? Isn't having a PI per =
residential homenet rather unlikely?
It would be desirable to avoid NPTv6 in the homenet scenario.
Tim=
