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_brzozow...@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" <carlosm3...@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_brzozow...@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_brzozow...@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" <o...@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 >=========================
