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

Brzozowski, John John_Brzozowski at Cable.Comcast.com
Thu Jan 27 07:58:55 CST 2011


I am definitely *NOT* an advocate of NAT66 nor am I an advocate of further
subneting a /64 into longer prefixes.

Where additional IPv6 prefixes are required a prefix shorter than a /64
should be delegated.

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 1/27/11 7:56 AM, "Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo" <carlosm3011 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>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_Goo
>>>>gl
>>>>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