v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW)

Matthew Moyle-Croft mmc at internode.com.au
Thu Feb 5 04:29:43 UTC 2009

Hi James,

I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.

I've had basically nothing from anyone.

Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I  
don't think anyone could have.  (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe  
support until late this year!).

There's a lot of people who clearly don't work for ISPs yammering on  
about the Zen of v6, but no one with real experience.

Scary huh?   I'm meant to have 250,000 customers running it by  


On 05/02/2009, at 2:44 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:

> 	Hello Matthew ,  See way below ...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>> Scott Howard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net 
>>> >wrote:
>>>  On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode.com.au 
>>> >wrote:
>>>> but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL  
>>>> mean
>>>> static allocations for all customers.
>>> By design IPv6 should mean _less_ static allocations than IPv4 -  
>>> in the
>>> event that a client disconnects/reconnects and gets a new /64 then  
>>> their
>>> network *should* automatically handle that fact, with all clients
>>> automagically renumbering themselves to the new /64, updating DNS,  
>>> etc.
>>> Local communications won't be impacted as they should be using the
>>> link-local address.
>> _should_
>> As I asked before - I'm really keen to actually do this stuff - but  
>> all I get is people who haven't done it telling me theory and not  
>> how it works in practise in a real ISP of some scale. Telling  
>> customers "well, you might get renumbered randomly" isn't going to  
>> work, no matter what the theory about it all is.  They do crazy and  
>> unexpected things and bleat about it even if you told them not to.   
>> At worse they stop paying you and leave!
>> My hope is that PD will be used for the majority and statics will  
>> be small in number.  My FEAR is that customers have already been  
>> conditioned that v6 will mean statics for everyone because v6 has  
>> so many! (This has already been the assumption many have made from  
>> the customer side).
>>> The bit that isn't clear at the moment is if (and how well) that  
>>> will
>>> actually work in practice.  And that brings us back to the good  
>>> old catch-22
>>> of ISPs not supporting IPv6 because consumer CPE doesn't support  
>>> it, and CPE
>>> not supporting it because ISP don't...
>> Tell me about it. As I asked before - has ANYONE done this  
>> before?   ie.  fully dualstacked to customers?  Or is it still  
>> theory?
> 	Has Anyone responded to you on/off list with even a close  
> approximation of showing they have accomplished what you've  
> requested ?
> 	I am beginning to be worried that no one [has|is willing to  
> divulge] that they have accomplished this .  One would think that  
> someone would at least pipe up just for the bragging factor .
> 		Twyl ,  JimL
> -- 
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
> | Network&System Engineer | 2133    McCullam Ave |  Give me Linux  |
> | babydr at baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99701 |   only  on  AXP |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------+

Matthew Moyle-Croft Internode/Agile Peering and Core Networks
Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: mmc at internode.com.au    Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909		     Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

More information about the NANOG mailing list