[156719] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Bool)
Mon Sep 24 16:12:12 2012
From: Adrian Bool <aid@logic.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <506090FF.30001@redpill-linpro.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:11:12 +0100
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson =
<tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:
> * Tore Anderson
>=20
>> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD.
>=20
> FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today,
> it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:
>=20
> https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5
> =
https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/91-townsley-map-ripe65-ams-sept-24-2=
012.pdf
Interesting video; thanks for posting the link.
This does seem a strange proposal though. My understanding from the =
video is that it is a technology to help not with the deployment of IPv6 =
but with the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. In summary; it simply allows a =
number of users (e.g. 1024) to share a single public IPv4 address.
My feeling is therefore, why are the IPv4 packets to/from the end user =
being either encapsulated or translated into IPv6 - why do they not =
simply remain as IPv4 packets?
If the data is kept as IPv4, this seems to come down to just two =
changes,
* The ISP's router to which the user connects being able to route =
packets on routes that go beyond the IP address and into the port number =
field of TCP/UDP.
* A CE router being instructed to constrain itself to using a limited =
set of ports on the WAN side in its NAT44 implementation.
Why all the IPv6 shenanigans complicating matters?
Cheers,
aid
