[153965] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Jun 19 19:36:04 2012
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:34:11 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1340145574.2753.6.camel@karl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Karl Auer wrote:
>> host <-> home UPnP NAT <-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> Internet
>> <-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> home UPnP NAT <-> host
>
> "Trivially"? I think this looks much nicer:
>
> host <-> Internet <-> host
Yes, if only the Internet were uniform.
However, compared to
V6 incapable V6 capable
host <-> Internet<-> home router <-> Internet <->
6/4 tunnel V6 capable 6/4 tunnel V6 capable
end point <-> Internet <-> end point <-> Internet <->
V6 incapable
home router <-> Internet <-> host
which can often be:
V6 incapable V6 capable
host <-> Internet<-> home router <-> Internet <->
6/4 tunnel V6 *INCAPABLE* 6/4 tunnel V6 capable
end point <-> Internet <-> end point <-> Internet <->
V6 incapable
home router <-> Internet <-> host
>> host <-> home UPnP NAT <-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> Internet
>> <-> Carrier UPnP NAT <-> home UPnP NAT <-> host
is just trivial and uniform.
> The way it used to be before NAT, and the way, with IPv6, it can be
> again.
With IPv6, see above.
Masataka Ohta
