nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Confusion
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:44:08 +0100 (CET)
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
I probably tied CPE to NAT together in my mind....if I peel NAT out from what these CPE are doing, perhaps a PPPoE/A environment is the only place a L3 CPE will be needed with IPv6 anymore. FTTH, BWA, RFC 1483/RBE, and cable modems can bridge at L2 and each customer host can each have their own IPv6 address.
Do you really want to keep state for hundreds of end user devices in your equipment?
In my mind, IPv6 more than ever requires the customer to have their own L3 device (which you delegate a /56 to with DHCPv6-PD).
Imagine the size of your TCAM needed with antispoofing ACLs and adjacancies when the customer has 100 active IPv6 addresses (remember that IPv6 enabled devices often have multiple IPv6 addresses, my windows machine regularily grabs 3 for instance).
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joe Provo (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Steven Lisson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Brandon Galbraith (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Bob Snyder (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 20)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Brandon Galbraith (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Steven Lisson (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Skywing (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion TJ (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)