Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

[Tore Anderson <tore.anderson () redpill-linpro com>]

* Mark Radabaugh

> We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem.  I was
> really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box.  I'll take a look at DS
> Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense.

Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part of
the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping.

You might want to look into MAP, which to the best of my knowledge is
the only solution that facilitates IPv4 address sharing between
subscribers without any form of (centralised) NAT.

> Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with
> CPE.  It's not an environment where we have control over the router the
> customer picks up at Walmart.

In that case, running IPv6-only to your subscribers isn't a realistic
proposition at this point in time. Unfortunately. If you're running out
of IPv4 addresses, you better try to get your hands on more of them,
somehow, or start planning for the «giant NAT box» you're going to need.

Alternatively, you could begin providing all your *new* subscribers with
managed CPEs that support DS-Lite, MAP, NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT (or
whichever other IPv4 life-support technology you end up choosing), while
at the same time letting your old subscribers with their IPv4-only
Walmart CPEs hang on to their public IPv4 address for as long as they
need it.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/