[151140] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 12 16:09:06 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|981e8b77000778b4cc8d6b77c6365d69o2BJpA03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|3FA2D2CD-A31A-4D22-AF06-58C5DCDC126E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:04:40 -0700
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>=20
> On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
Yes, but, having reasonable and/or multiple PA prefixes is very likely =
and there is no reason not to use that instead of cobbled solutions =
based on NPT.
> It would be desirable to avoid NPTv6 in the homenet scenario.
>=20
Very much so. (Or any other scenario I can think of as well).
Owen
