AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 2 22:54:50 UTC 2013


On Dec 2, 2013, at 14:35 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
> 
> Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high end" (i.e. things that cost more than $17 at Tiger Direct.)
> 

Maybe you should expand your consideration to include $30-$50 at Best Buy.

>> However, as I have repeatedly said... IPv6 is not about just what we need today. What we need today is limited to what we could do with the scarcity inherent in IPv4 addressing. Restricting IPv6 based on those limitations is absurd.
> 
> DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out today. A "simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing out /56's instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to let the customer ask for what they need/want; assuming they just default to asking for the largest block they're allowed and using only 3 networks.)
> 

No, DHCPv6-PD isn't a restriction. Only handing out a /60 _IS_ a restriction.

As to a "simple" reconfiguration, not really. That depends very much on how the infrastructure that DHCP server supports is architected.

>> IPv6 should be about what we want to be able to do in 5, 10, 20, and 50 years. It shouldn't be about what we need today.
> 
> We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now and "later", as "later" becomes apparent.

Circular and short-sighted argument.

There's already clear evidence that having a wider bit field will enable greater flexibility and better application development, so we should be deploying that wider bitfield.

You're arguing the network equivalant of "we shouldn't deploy charging stations until there are tons of electric cars on the road." I'm arguing that we'll never see tons of electric cars on the road until there is a widespread infrastructure of charging stations. So far, in the electric car world, it seems that charging stations are starting to pop up all over the place and as they become more widespread, indeed, more electric cars are hitting the road.

> 
>> Yes, we've suffered with a severely degraded internet for decades. Is that really a reason not to make things better going forward? I don't think so.
> 
> More complex is not always "better".  This is doubly true here as very few people ("the public") have any measurable clue when it comes to networks. The Internet is just something that works. When you start mixing in multiple networks, that's going to create problems for them. Recall my Windows warning... the default firewall setup blocks inbound access from outside the local subnet. So with the above 3-way router, a PC on the wired network and a laptop on WiFi would not be able to talk to each other without MANUAL adjustment -- or Microsoft will have to start making (even more) dangerous assumptions about one's network [assume every "LAN" is /60? /56?, on top of the already Bad Idea(tm) that "ALL LANS ARE SLASH SIXTY-FOUR, SO SAYETH THE RFC!"]

I agree... The unnecessary complexity inherent in NAT and even moreso with CGN is horrible.

Multiple networks will be plug and play. Heck, they already are in some circumstances... Look at the number of people that have no trouble converting their cell phones and tablets from simple nodes to internet routers. 

I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN segments.

Micr0$0ft doesn't have to make any assumptions at all. In the IPv6 world, they can use site-scoped multicast (ffx5::).

All that is required in that case is for the home gateway to know that it is the home gateway and not a lower-level router within the site. (More accurately, it needs to be able to distinguish between the provider link and it's intra-site links. I believe that is generally something that the gateway should be able to do automatically...

(The DSL or Cable interface is obviously not intra-site, for example).


> 
>> I hate to break it to you, but, no, nobody is really paying for that space.
> 
> Go talk to your bean counters.  There's a line-item charge for your address space; they'll want it as small as possible. (they'll also want to make as much money off that space as possible. Even if *you* aren't charging for IPv{4,6} space, almost everyone else does, and wants to continue. Because it's a major source of revenue.)


I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants them and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.

Frankly, if you're paying for IPv6 space, you're not too bright. You can go get a direct assignment from an RIR so easily for $100/year that it just doesn't make sense to pay more than that.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list