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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at eeph.com
Tue Feb 10 00:00:12 UTC 2009

Owen DeLong wrote:
> In terms of implementing the code, sure, the result is about the same,
> but, the key point here is that there really isn't a benefit to having that
> packet mangling code in IPv6.

Unless your SOX auditor requires it in order to give you a non-qualified 
audit of your infrastructure.

The real problem with IPv6 deployment is not that it can't be done, but 
that there are so many still-to-be-answered questions between here and 

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the NANOG mailing list