On 9/29/21 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Sep 29, 2021, at 09:25, Victor Kuarsingh <vic...@jvknet.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:55 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG
<nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
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.
Owen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mike
