What's the current state of major access networks in North America ipv6 delivery status?

Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 27 06:56:26 CST 2011


Reading this thread, and building on many comments to a previous one,
I definitely see the need for subnetting a /64 arising sooner than
later.

It might not be perfect, It might be ugly, but it will happen. And, if
you ask me, I would rather subnet a /64 than end up with a ipv6
version of NAT, a much worse alternative.

cheers,

Carlos

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Brzozowski, John
<John_Brzozowski at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> In order to deploy /56 to end users would require an IPv6 /24 be dedicated
> to 6rd, /48s would require a dedicated IPv6 /16.  This assumes an operator
> wants/needs to provide IPv6 via 6rd to end users where their IPv4 address
> is fully unique.  There is quite a bit of IPv6 address space that does not
> gets utilized in this model.
>
> The routers we are using as part of the trials only support /64 as such we
> are using an IPv6 /32.
>
> It is also important that operators plan for the ability to delegate
> prefixes that are shorter than a /64.  There are several cases that we
> have seen where the router can only make use of a /64.  This is better
> than nothing when referring to legacy devices that have been able to
> introduce some support for IPv6 and would have otherwise been IPv4 only
> devices.
>
> John
> =========================================
> John Jason Brzozowski
> Comcast Cable
> e) mailto:john_brzozowski at cable.comcast.com
> o) 609-377-6594
> m) 484-962-0060
> w) http://www.comcast6.net
> =========================================
>
>
>
>
> On 1/26/11 5:02 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks
>>> delivery of ipv6 in North America?
>>>
>>> I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly
>>> looked into 6rd. Is this a dead end path/giant hack?
>>>
>>>
>>>https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/05_Chase_Googl
>>>econf-BroadbandtransitiontoIPv6using6rd.pdf?attredirects=0
>>>
>>It's a fairly ugly way to deliver IPv6, but, as transition technologies
>>go, it's the least dead-end of the options.
>>
>>It at least provides essentially native dual stack environment. The
>>only difference is that your IPv6 access is via a tunnel. You'll probably
>>be limited to a /56 or less over 6rd, unfortunately, but, because of the
>>awful way 6rd consumes addresses, handing out /48s would be
>>utterly impractical. Free.fr stuck their customers with /60s, which is
>>hopefully a very temporary situation.
>>
>>>
>>> I spoke with impulse.net last year, which appears to serve large
>>> portions of the AT&T cable plant in Southern California. They were
>>> willing to offer native ipv6. Not sure how (one /64, a /48) etc.
>>>
>>You should definitely push your providers to give you a /48 if
>>possible. If /56 or worse /60 or worst of all, /64 become widespread
>>trends, it may significantly impact, delay, or even prevent innovations
>>in the end-user networking/consumer electronics markets.
>>
>>Owen
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
http://www.labs.lacnic.net
=========================




More information about the NANOG mailing list