Re: A new transition plan, was: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thus spake "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx>
You will still see consective addresses with IPv6.  Until
you put a *dedicated* router at the end of the DSL line or
on the cable modem etc.  there will still be lots of addresses
handed out where the next address is managed by someone
else.

That's not necessary, though it's the ideal scenario once v4 is dead in a decade or two and it's feasible for consumer-grade ISPs to reorganize their L2 networks.

In the meantime, what I've been expecting to see is that ISPs would use a /64 for the "shared" access subnet and then the CPE devices (a stateful firewall) would use DHCP PD to get a /64 for each customer's site. This is entirely compatible with using PA v4 space on the access subnet and having the CPE NAT to RFC1918 space (typically 192.168.1/24).

Thanks to RFC 3041, you may never see two connections using the same IPv6 address and have to block a /64 at minimum for blacklists to have any effect. Fortunately, that's entirely compatible with most deployment scenarios, as each customer will be on their own /64 (or shorter).

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]