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@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@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@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@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@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 =========================