Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>]

Hi Tom,

The key take-away is that MAP doesn't _necessarily_ require IPv6 prefix to
be constructed in a special way (so as to encode the IPv4 address inside
it).
 

Please see more inline,

> I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
> then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change.

Yes. 

> I would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
> you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.

It can work even in that realm as well (IPv6 PD assumed). There are pros &
cons of doing this, suffice to say.

Cheers,

Rajiv


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds () gmail com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

> I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
> then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change. I
> would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
> you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.
>
> Tom
>
> On 08/04/2013 5:38 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Good question.
> >
> > The End-user IPv6 prefix can be constructed using whatever techniques
> > independent of MAP etc. in any deployment requiring IPv4 address
> > sharing.
> >
> > What is interesting is that the MAP enabled CPE could parse certain bits
> > of that IPv6 prefix to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
> > screenshot to illustrate this very point.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds () gmail com>
> > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
> > To: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
> > Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
> >
> > > In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
> > > IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4
> > > over
> > > IPv6 alternative.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
> > > > encumbered?
> > > >
> > > > If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
> > > > accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Rajiv
> > > ...