[181788] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Moore)
Sat Jul 4 23:01:12 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 03:01:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQM42CkhX3O8ok5NMsobe_2=TMY911G2Ft_Ln8Nm_e11Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
But what is the "best compromise" strategy? Dual stack + CGN? Some kind of =
intelligent 6to4 NAT?
Thanks,
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161
On Jul 4, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com<mailto:cb.list6@gmai=
l.com>> wrote:
On Saturday, July 4, 2015, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmoore=
@atcnetworks.net>> wrote:
Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the CPE.
Consider the following:
An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack with =
the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow regardles=
s of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best practices see=
m to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If this is the ca=
se, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help with the v4 addres=
s depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still need legacy IPv4 co=
mpatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution but what about applicat=
ions that need direct IPv4 connectivity without NAT? It seems that there sh=
ould be a mechanism to enable on-demand and efficient IPv4 address consumpt=
ion ONLY when needed. My question is this: What, if any, solutions like thi=
s exist? If no solution exists then what is the next best thing? What would=
the overall IPv6 migration strategy and goal be?
Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and wh=
ile I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; I d=
on't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate issu=
e: IPv4 depletion.
Thanks
Joshua Moore
Network Engineer
ATC Broadband
912.632.3161
Yep, dual-stack does not solve problems for eyeball networks. This is why e=
yeball networks use ds-lite, 464xlat, and map. Each requires some sort of c=
ompromise.
At the end of the day, we all need to reject 'direct ipv4', it is an invali=
d requirement that cannot be supported at scale over time.
