v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Martin Hannigan martin at theicelandguy.com
Thu Feb 5 05:14:02 UTC 2009

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> wrote:

> In message <20090205030522.13D152B21F3 at mx5.roble.com>, Roger Marquis
> writes:
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >     All IPv6 address assignments are leases.  Whether you get
> > >     the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP.  The lease may not be
> > >     renewed when it next falls due.  You may get assigned a
> > >     different set of addresses at that point.  You should plan
> > >     accordingly.
> >
> > Exactly the problem, and the reason A) IPv6 is not and will not be a
> viable
> > option any time soon (soon being before the publication of an IPv6 NAT
> > RFC), and B) why network providers (and other parties who stand to gain
> > financially) are firmly against IPv6 NAT.

What about costs? If you're a realist, you know that v6 migration is a cost
problem. Ask cable or DSL providers across the world what percentage of
their user base CPE is v6 compatable and the answer will likely be shocking.
In this economy, unless the seondary market is egregiously expensive, don't
expect to see a mass migration. There's also the problem of no known
commericial grade NAT device (SLA worthy) that makes this easier.

Thoughts appreciated.



Martin Hannigan                               martin at theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079

More information about the NANOG mailing list