IPv6 Confusion

Steven Lisson stevel at dedicatedservers.net.au
Tue Feb 17 20:04:59 CST 2009


Hi,

I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated, with people
talking about carrier grade NATS I think combining these with NAT-PT
could help with the transition after we run out of IPv4 space.

ISP gets a chunk of IPv6 address space, sets up customers with it, gets
their big lovely carrier grade NAT device that NAT's from customers IPv6
address to whatever IPv4 service they need.

I'm probably missing something but does this not seem like a good
option? Why not use IPv6 instead of private IPv4, end user gets
end-to-end connectivity with anything that is IPv6 enabled while still
being able to access the legacy IPv4 network.

Also see it of long term benefit to ISP's as will first have to get big
expensive equipment for CGN, but over time they won't have the big
expensive of continuously upgrading these units as IPv4 dwindles

Just my 2c

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 10:03 AM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: 'Carl Rosevear'; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion

At Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0800,
Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are
> implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at
this
> point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host
> implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer

s/network operator would prefer/specifications/

> One last comment (because I hear "just more bits" a lot in the *nog
> community)... Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. If you
approach
> it as "IPv4 with more bits", you will trip over the differences and be
> pissed off. If you approach it as a "different protocol with a name
that
> starts with IP" and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with
decnet,
> sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You
will
> also hear lots of noise about 'lack of compatibility', which is just
another
> instance of refusing to recognize that this is really a different
protocol.
> At the end of the day, it is a packet based protocol that moves
payloads
> around. 

unfortunately, this view leads to two internets, and one not reachable
from the other.  this is not very realistic from the business and user
point of view.

randy





More information about the NANOG mailing list