<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/29/21 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong via
NANOG wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63339A04-B7E5-4620-9A16-4DDB10B64A64@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sep 29, 2021, at 09:25, Victor
Kuarsingh <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:victor@jvknet.com"><victor@jvknet.com></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at
10:55 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <<a
href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" moz-do-not-send="true">nanog@nanog.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">Use SLAAC, allocate prefixes from both
providers. If you are using multiple routers, set
the priority of the preferred router to high in the
RAs. If you’re using one router, set the preferred
prefix as desired in the RAs. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Owen</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree this works, but I assume that we would not
consider this a consumer level solution (requires an
administrator to make it work). It also assumes the
local network policy allows for auto-addressing vs.
requirement for DHCP. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
It shouldn’t require an administrator if there’s just one router.
If there are two routers, I’d say we’re beyond the average
consumer. <br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think the multiple router problem is one of the things that
homenet was supposed to be solving for such that it is plug and
play. But I share some of your skepticism.</p>
<p>I wonder if anybody has run an experiment wider than one or two
people where the home router implements a 6-4 NAT and the default
numbering is v6 instead of v4. That is, run everything that can
run on v6 and NAT it to v4 on the wan side (assuming there isn't
v6 there). There are lots of v6 stacks out there for all of the
common OS's and supposedly they prefer v6 in a happy eyeballs
race. I mean, if we have to NAT why not v6 NAT the devices that
support it and v4 NAT the ones that can't.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if Cablelabs is active with v6 -- last I heard they
were pushing v6, but that's been ages -- but that would really put
their money where their mouth is if it really worked well at
scale. It would also give some incentive to have v6 in the last
mile so you don't even need the 6-4 NAT. Didn't somebody like
Comcast go to a complete v6 network internally to simplify their
network? That sounds like it would push the simplification even
farther.</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>