Aaron Gould aaron1 at
Fri Apr 7 18:11:23 UTC 2017

Thanks Max, I've thought about that and tested some ipv6 (6vpe, mpls l3vpn
w/ipv6 dual stacked) in my network.

In my CGNAT testing for my 7,000 dsl customers, I've already tested the
inter-vrf route leaks that will be required for ipv6-flow-around to bypass
the IPv4 CGNAT boundary.... so, I have tested dual stacking my dsl customers
with v4/v6 and seen that the v4 does flow via cgnat and v6 does bypass nat.
I could dig up some ios(xr)/junos inter-vrf route leak/policy configs if
anyone could benefit from that.

I'm actually anxious to get started on my ipv6 deployment in my dsl space...
as you have eluded to Max, this would push out the life of my ipv4 cgnat
juniper mx104/ms-mic-16g boundary since we would expect the ipv6 traffic to
flow naturally to my internet pipes un-natted and thus relive the nat nodes.
...and as more and more ipv6 is adopted in the world, the nat44/napt cgnat
boundary is less and less needed.... until ultimately, we are in a ipv6-only


More information about the NANOG mailing list