Hi Tom, The key take-away is that MAP doesn't _necessarily_ require IPv6 prefix to be constructed in a special way (so as to encode the IPv4 address inside it).
Please see more inline, > I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP, > then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change. Yes. > I would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as > you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes. It can work even in that realm as well (IPv6 PD assumed). There are pros & cons of doing this, suffice to say. Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM To: Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN >I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP, >then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change. I >would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as >you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes. > >Tom > >On 08/04/2013 5:38 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> Good question. >> >> The End-user IPv6 prefix can be constructed using whatever techniques >> independent of MAP etc. in any deployment requiring IPv4 address >>sharing. >> >> What is interesting is that the MAP enabled CPE could parse certain bits >> of that IPv6 prefix to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a >> screenshot to illustrate this very point. >> >> Cheers, >> Rajiv >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com> >> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM >> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN >> >>> In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties >>> IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4 >>>over >>> IPv6 alternative. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP >>>> encumbered? >>>> >>>> If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to >>>> accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rajiv >>>> >>> ... >>> >>
