Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 9/29/21 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2021, at 09:25, Victor Kuarsingh <victor () jvknet com> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:55 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
> > <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Use SLAAC, allocate prefixes from both providers. If you are
> >     using multiple routers, set the priority of the preferred router
> >     to high in the RAs. If you’re using one router, set the preferred
> >     prefix as desired in the RAs.
> >
> >     Owen
> >
> >
> > I agree this works, but I assume that we would not consider this a 
> > consumer level solution (requires an administrator to make it work).  
> > It also assumes the local network policy allows for auto-addressing 
> > vs. requirement for DHCP.
>
> It shouldn’t require an administrator if there’s just one router. If 
> there are two routers, I’d say we’re beyond the average consumer.


I think the multiple router problem is one of the things that homenet 
was supposed to be solving for such that it is plug and play. But I 
share some of your skepticism.

I wonder if anybody has run an experiment wider than one or two people 
where the home router implements a 6-4 NAT and the default numbering is 
v6 instead of v4. That is, run everything that can run on v6 and NAT it 
to v4 on the wan side (assuming there isn't v6 there). There are lots of 
v6 stacks out there for all of the common OS's and supposedly they 
prefer v6 in a happy eyeballs race. I mean, if we have to NAT why not v6 
NAT the devices that support it and v4 NAT the ones that can't.

I'm not sure if Cablelabs is active with v6 -- last I heard they were 
pushing v6, but that's been ages -- but that would really put their 
money where their mouth is if it really worked well at scale. It would 
also give some incentive to have v6 in the last mile so you don't even 
need the 6-4 NAT. Didn't somebody like Comcast go to a complete v6 
network internally to simplify their network? That sounds like it would 
push the simplification even farther.

Mike