Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Rajiv Asati (rajiva) rajiva at cisco.com
Tue Apr 9 03:19:55 UTC 2013


Hi Tom,

The key take-away is that MAP doesn't _necessarily_ require IPv6 prefix to
be constructed in a special way (so as to encode the IPv4 address inside
it).
 

Please see more inline,

> I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
> then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change.

Yes. 

> I would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
> you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.

It can work even in that realm as well (IPv6 PD assumed). There are pros &
cons of doing this, suffice to say.

Cheers,

Rajiv


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva at cisco.com>
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

>I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
>then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change. I
>would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
>you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.
>
>Tom
>
>On 08/04/2013 5:38 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> The End-user IPv6 prefix can be constructed using whatever techniques
>> independent of MAP etc. in any deployment requiring IPv4 address
>>sharing.
>>
>> What is interesting is that the MAP enabled CPE could parse certain bits
>> of that IPv6 prefix to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
>> screenshot to illustrate this very point.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rajiv
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
>> To: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>>
>>> In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
>>> IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4
>>>over
>>> IPv6 alternative.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
>>>> encumbered?
>>>>
>>>> If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
>>>> accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rajiv
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>





More information about the NANOG mailing list