[172541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Jun 22 22:14:00 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53A78BD7.1010500@bitfreak.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:16:10 -0700
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org> wrote:
> On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org>
>> wrote:
>>> For Comcast business services, the SMC box on my demarc panel isn't
>>> IPv6 capable and neither are any of Comcast's other business CPE.
>>=20
>> Not true. The Netgear CCB tried to install here just a couple of days
>> ago is IPv6 capable. Unfortunately, it breaks IPv4 by not being
>> capable of bridge mode and insisting on NATing everything inside
>> unless you subscribe to static IPv4 addresses from Comcast.
>=20
> What's the model number? The Comcast techs here are quite insistent =
that none of the CPE capable of routed subnets are able to do IPv6.
>=20
>> OTOH, you can supply your own Motorola Surfboard DOCSIS 3 modem and
>> it works just fine with Comcast Business.
>=20
> Have you tried using that with a routed subnet?
Not sure what you mean by =93routed subnet=94.
I=92ve got a router hooked up to it and everything on my internal =
network(s) is behind that router, so I=92m using it with routed subnets =
by my definition of that term. If you have some specific way of setting =
up your services that=92s different from that, you=92d need to be =
specific before I could usefully comment.
Owen
