Re: Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-25 Thread Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
, 24 Sep 2012 22:42:46 +0100 >From: Mike Jones >To: Adrian Bool >Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" >Subject: Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance) >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >On 24 September 2012 21:11, Adrian Bool wr

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Tore Anderson
* Adrian Bool > > On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote: > >> While you could do something similar without the encapsulation >> this would require that every router on your network support >> routing on port numbers, > > Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Owen DeLong
You can avoid the giant NAT box as long as you don't have to add a new customer for whom you don't have an available IPv4 address. At that point, you either have to implement the giant NAT box for your future (and possibly an increasing percentage of your existing) customers, or, stop adding ne

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Adrian Bool
On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote: > While you could do something similar without the encapsulation this > would require that every router on your network support routing on > port numbers, Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed to leverage hierarchy to r

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Mike Jones
On 24 September 2012 21:11, Adrian Bool wrote: > > On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson > wrote: > >> * Tore Anderson >> >>> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. >> >> FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, >> it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Adrian Bool
On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Tore Anderson > >> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. > > FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, > it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending: > > https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5 > https://ri

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-24 Thread Tore Anderson
* Tore Anderson > I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending: https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5 https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/91-townsley-map-ripe65-ams-sept-24-2012.

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Tore Anderson
* Mark Radabaugh > Thanks for the help. We are actually in decent shape with respect to > IPv4, probably at least 1 if not 2 years at current growth rate. We can > deliver dual stack with public IPv4/6 to customers now. This is the > planning stage for <>, assuming there are no better options. >

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Mark Radabaugh
On 9/22/12 4:03 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: * Mark Radabaugh We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem. I was really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box. I'll take a look at DS Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense. Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some for

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Tore Anderson
* Randy Bush >> Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part >> of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. > > ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you > want to use a new protocol. > > nat64 is at my cpe border. Mark was a

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Randy Bush writes: > > Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a =ABgiant NAT box=BB as part > > of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. > > ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you > want to use a new protocol. DS-lite can be de

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Randy Bush
> Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part > of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you want to use a new protocol. nat64 is at my cpe border. randy

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-22 Thread Tore Anderson
* Mark Radabaugh > We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem. I was > really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box. I'll take a look at DS > Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense. Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part of the

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Mark Andrews
On 22/09/2012, at 12:04 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we need in >> place as a ISP to ensure these customers can reach IPv4 only hosts? > > I would say you want to do dual-stack, but shift the users that don't *need* > public IPs i

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
Dhcpv6, radius .. take your pick --srs (htc one x) On Sep 21, 2012 7:04 PM, "Mark Radabaugh" wrote: > > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much > documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to > point me in the right direction? > > Can we assign IPv

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:22:18 -0400, TJ said: > > Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with > CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the > customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in > spending a lot of resources on s

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread TJ
> Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in spending a lot of resources on something the consumer can't currently use. > Note: S

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:42:20 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said: > Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with > CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the > customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in > spending a lot of res

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Seth Mos
Op 21-9-2012 21:42, Mark Radabaugh schreef: Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in spending a lot of resources on someth

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Mark Radabaugh
On 9/21/12 9:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread joel jaeggli
On 9/21/12 6:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Richard Barnes
The folks that have done the most work in enabling IPv6-only end users seem to be CERNET2 in China. To let people get to v4, they're using what they call IVI (get it?), which is basically NAT64+DNS64. If you don't mind runn

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Jared Mauch
On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation > on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the > right direction? This all depends on how your manage your last-mile and terminate users

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Jeroen Massar
On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much > documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to > point me in the right direction? > > Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we > nee

Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

2012-09-21 Thread Mark Radabaugh
The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we need in place as a ISP to ensure these customers can rea