Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

["Kalnozols, Andris" <andris () hpl hp com>]

On 6/22/2014 7:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog () bitfreak org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/22/2014 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog () bitfreak org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > For Comcast business services, the SMC box on my demarc panel isn't
> > > > IPv6 capable and neither are any of Comcast's other business CPE.
> > >
> > > Not true. The Netgear CCB tried to install here just a couple of days
> > > ago is IPv6 capable. Unfortunately, it breaks IPv4 by not being
> > > capable of bridge mode and insisting on NATing everything inside
> > > unless you subscribe to static IPv4 addresses from Comcast.
> >
> > What's the model number?  The Comcast techs here are quite insistent
> > that none of the CPE capable of routed subnets are able to do IPv6.
> >
> > > OTOH, you can supply your own Motorola Surfboard DOCSIS 3 modem and
> > > it works just fine with Comcast Business.
> >
> > Have you tried using that with a routed subnet?
>
> Not sure what you mean by “routed subnet”.
>
> I’ve got a router hooked up to it and everything on my internal network(s)
> is behind that router, so I’m using it with routed subnets by my definition
> of that term. If you have some specific way of setting up your services
> that’s different from that, you’d need to be specific before I could usefully
> comment.

My experience as a Comcast Business customer with a /29 IPv4 subnet was
that swapping out the SMC modem/router for an IPV6-capable Motorola
DOCSIS 3 modem meant that I could no longer have the /29.

Andris