Greenfield IPv4 + IPv6 broadband deployment

[Frank Bulk]

I'm well aware of that draft and have read it from beginning to end.  My comments were in relation to the OP's recommendation that customers be required to have a router in order to access an ISP's IPv6 service.

But to your point, yes, some domestics NATs are pretty weak as routers.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:16 PM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: 'Mikael Abrahamsson'; Dan White; Adam Armstrong; IPv6 operators forum
Subject: Re: Greenfield IPv4 + IPv6 broadband deployment

Frank,

The pending RFC spec for domestic/SOHO IPv6 CPE is a router.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router&rfcs=on&activeDrafts=on

I've seen plenty of domestic NATs mis-sold as "routers" and I think those
vendors will have little choice but to actually deliver routers for IPv6.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter


On 2011-02-27 18:04, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I'm just not aware of an ISP that requires a customer to provide their
> router -- if a service provider uses a modem or ONT, the customer is free to
> plug in a router or their PC directly.  At least that's the way it is in
> North America.
> 
> That said, I would say that definitely than 10% and probably less than 5% of
> our customers don't use a router.  I'm not worried about a customer having
> 50 devices -- they would likely have a router in that case.  Most of our
> configs hand out only one IPv4 address, so they're already "programmed" to
> know that if they want multiple devices online the home that they need to
> use a router, and 99.9%, it's a wireless router.
> 
> So I'm aware of the ND concerns, but with our small operations (<8,500
> broadband users across 4 different access platforms), the ND concerns are
> minimal.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike at swm.pp.se] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:58 PM
> To: Frank Bulk
> Cc: Adam Armstrong; Dan White; IPv6 operators forum
> Subject: RE: Greenfield IPv4 + IPv6 broadband deployment
> 
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
> 
>> It's a bit much, in our customer base, to require a router.
> 
> Could you please elaborate on that?
> 
> It's my world view that a majority of people already have a NAT gateway 
> (because they want wifi etc), and the people who don't, do they really 
> need IPv6 connectivity right away? When they want it, they can purchase a 
> router and then have it.
> 
> I just see so many downsides with supporting a vendor routed /64 that I 
> don't see that I can recommend it. Of course, large deployment hasn't 
> happened yet so operationally we don't know what's going to happen.
> 
> If you're going to be the default gw of the /64, I think it's a good idea 
> to enforce what number of IPv6 addresses and mac addresses you support in 
> the service. Handling lots of ND is not going to scale, you really don't 
> want to be part of the home network if you can avoid it. Think 50 devices 
> which might have multiple IPv6 addresses each. That's a lot of ND and TCAM 
> usage.
> 
> I'm sure you can get away with it initially, but isn't it better to do it 
> right from the start than to have to stop doing it and converting the 
> users later?
>