In message <3e7ae2ad-18e0-4ea0-bf76-704cd49ec...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad writes: > Wes, > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:02 AM, George, Wes wrote: > > Independent of whether we have any left, continued support for IPv4 in the > home and enterprise is *non-negotiable*, > > True, however as I understand it, this isn't the issue. IIUC, the problem is > n't what happens in the home and enterprise, it is what happens on the WAN si > de of old non-upgradeable CPE when connected via CGNs. > > > Saying that IPv6 is a solution to an IPv4 CGN implementation problem is lik > e saying ... > > I'm guessing part of the issue here is folks appear to be talking past each o > ther. It might be helpful to be explicit about what your view of the "IPv4 C > GN implementation problem" is. For example, IPv6 _could_ be a solution if bot > h the CPE and the CGN supports IPv6 and a way to tunnel v4 through v6 (no ide > a if anyone does this). > > Regards, > -drc
It's called DS-Lite and the IETF is working towards getting it added to the IPv6 CPE Router profile. Unfortunately it requires a CPE that supports IPv6 or is upgradable to support IPv6 and most existing CPE routers don't fall into either of those categories. This is primarly about getting existing equipment to work well with CGNs without breaking everything else and address conservation. Adding a address range as non-public to existing equipment is a lot easier than adding IPv6 so that you can use DS-Lite. Much CPE equipment doesn't have the flash capacity to do the later. The former is trival provide the company that supplied the fireware is still in business. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
