nanog mailing list archives

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO


From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:28:01 +1100


In message <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311290622170.1157 () uplift swm pp se>, Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:

You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively.

It's only when the ISP is lazy and encodes the entire IPv4 address
space into 6rd thereby wasting most of the IPv6 address space being
used for 6rd that a /60 appears to be generous.

You're contradicting yourself here.

What contradiction?  You need to break up the IPv6 address allocation
for both PD and 6rd.  I would say PD is slightly more complicated
than 6rd as you also want to optimise routing more with PD.  With
6rd you do the optimisation using the IPv4 addresses.

Yes, you're right about the technical 
solution, but it's not as easy (you need backend systems). Also, not all 
products support the variability of subnet lengths that the standard 
allows.

So who is shipping cr*p that claims to support RFC 5969 yet doesn't
all arbitary size 6rd domains?

The point of have a standard is so equipement from different
manufactures can work together.  A CPE device that can't accept all
legal values should be thrown in the bin.

So if you're not mapping the entire space (actually some products only 
allow /32 IPv6 space) 1-1 you're making the whole solution harder due to 
complexity in your backend system plus you're limiting the amount of 
customer gear that will support the solution.

I claim bovine excrement on customer gear.  Show me where the
6rdPrefixLen is defined to be 32?  Even with RFC 5569 it was up to
32 and the IPv4MaskLen is 0.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org


Current thread: