On Apr 3, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 11:58:23 -0400, Jared Mauch said:
Mostly curious if you are doing IPv6 if you see that slowing your need for v4 or if they are growing at the same rate.
And remember kids - the more you can push off to native IPv6, the longer you can push off an upgrade to your CGNAT box. ;)
For me, this is a big reason why if you’re doing CGNAT you want to compliment it with IPv6. At IETF last week there was an interesting discussion about the fact that things like DHCPv6-PD does not explicitly say that a DHCPv6-PD prefix should be inserted into the routing table (!), and you may not have the tools you need to mange these prefixes as a result. In DHCPv4 land of course you give out prefixes that are connected, but in DHCPv6-PD you may get something from a /56 to a /64 which may mean that route needs to go into your IGP. - Jared