[156727] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 24 21:11:55 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <505CC31C.3040709@amplex.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:10:01 -0700
To: Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You can avoid the giant NAT box as long as you don't have to add a new =
customer for whom you don't have an available IPv4 address.
At that point, you either have to implement the giant NAT box for your =
future (and possibly an increasing percentage of your existing) =
customers, or, stop adding new customers.
In terms of the CPE situation, until you solve that, IPv6-only isn't =
going to work for them, either, so the CPE issues simply can't be =
avoided no matter what. We need to find a way to get the vendors to make =
that float.
Owen
On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:42 , Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net> wrote:
> On 9/21/12 9:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>> The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much
>>> documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care =
to
>>> point me in the right direction?
>>>=20
>>> Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we
>>> need in place as a ISP to ensure these customers can reach IPv4 only =
hosts?
>>>=20
>>> The Interwebs are full of advice on setting up IPv6 tunnels for your
>>> house (nice but...). There is lots of really old documentation out
>>> there for IPv6 mechanisms that are depreciated or didn't fly.
>>>=20
>>> What is current best practice?
>> The IETF BCP is to deploy Dual Stack, thus both IPv4 and IPv6 at the
>> same time.
>>=20
>> When that is not possible, as you ran out of IPv4 addresses, you =
should
>> look at Dual Stack Lite (DS Lite) eg as supplied by ISC's AFTR and =
other
>> such implementations.
>>=20
>> Depending on your business model you can of course also stick =
everybody
>> behind a huge NAT or require them to use HTTP proxies to get to the
>> Internet as most people define it...
>>=20
>>=20
>> Do note that if you are asking any of these questions today you are
>> years late in reading up and you missed your chance to be prepared =
for
>> this in all kinds of ways.
>>=20
>> Greets,
>> Jeroen
>>=20
> We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem. I was =
really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box. I'll take a look at DS =
Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense.
>=20
> Dual stack isn't all that hard to deploy in the enterprise, perhaps =
even IPv6 only with NAT for backward compatibility.
>=20
> Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with =
CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the =
customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in =
spending a lot of resources on something the consumer can't currently =
use. I don't think saying we missed the boat really applies - and the =
consumer CPE ship is sinking at the dock.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
>=20
> mark@amplex.net 419.837.5015
>=20
