Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Victor Kuarsingh <victor () jvknet com>]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:49 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 22:11, Victor Kuarsingh <victor () jvknet com> wrote:
>
> > In the consumer world (Where a consumer has no idea who we are, what IP
> > is and the Internet is a wireless thing they attach to).
> >
> > I am only considering one router (consumer level stuff).  Here is my
> > example:
>
> I am afraid you are tailor making your case. We could just as well have an
> even more clueless customer that simply buys a 4G/5G router and attaches it
> to the inside of his LAN in addition to the wifi router he got from his
> DSL/cable/xPON service. Guess what will happen? It wont work as far as IPv4
> goes but it _will_ work with IPv6.
>
> As for the tailor made case where the customer buys a device actually made
> for this, said device would also implement IPv6 for dual WAN. Plenty of
> options for how the device could do that, including the possibility of
> doing 1:1 stateless IPv6 NAT or simply presenting both prefixes to the LAN
> and source route to the correct ISP.

You are correct - various cases will have different results (in fact my
main concern is that with consumer gear - there is quite a bit of
variability in what we can expect).

As for my use case, you are right, it was very specific, but that was on
purpose to have a fruitful discussion (versus hand waving things).  I also
wanted to discuss the dual prefix item as well (which was being discussed).
However it is a very real example and shows up in networks (at least in
NA).  I am sure we can draw a very long table of use cases with different
results.

Don't get me wrong, I want IPv6 to work better, I spent a lot of time
implementing IPv6 in multiple networks. That said, I also don't want to
ignore real common uses cases which impact customers and need to be
resolved.

I would like to dig into your use case a bit just so I understand.  I guess
in this case - you assumed the customer would hook up the LTE/5G router
using LAN side ports (no WAN side port).  That makes sense.  I bring this
up because what I had found when looking at direct network data is that
most consumers serialize connecting second routers to each other (but
that's a single provider use case - so I digress).

In this case, when we say "it won't work".  Do we mean nothing works? or
that the effective result of having a redundant connection to two providers
wont work. I agree that only one side, for IPv4 could work as the host
would only get an address from one or the other router.  This is a great
use case for IPv6 in terms of the benefits for dual router situations.

All that said, I do personally (because of impact on call centers and
costs) differentiate outcomes where something "does not have the full
intended redundancy" (but still works and gets people to the Internet)
versus "can supply brokenness driving calls and IT support" (the latter is
more serious in my opinion).

regards,

Victor K


> Regards,
>
> Baldur