Hi, judging from Gerts mail domain he might well be stuck with the very same provider i unfortunatelly signed a contract with. Small, local German providers seem to be going for native ipv6 with dslite. That allows them to grow even though they own a relatively small ipv4 pool. Most users are probably happy with the high bandwidth connection they get, most likely subsidized by the state ... But if you would like to use any service listening on an ipv4 port in your home, you will react allergic to the term "dslite".
Henning On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:34:21 +0200 Steven Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gert, > >> i find it very strange that your ISP doesn't offer public > >> addresses on the WAN interface however I think this is actually > >> standards compliant so we have to deal with it. > > It's called "IPv4 exhaustion"... DS-Lite is one of the way to deal > > with it (which effectively gives you "only one NAT in the path"), > > the other way is "hand out RFC1918 or 100.64.* addresses and > > double-NAT". > > > > Both stinks, but unless someone finds another few billion IPv4 > > addresses somewhere, this is what large scale providers need to do. > I'm sorry but it seems you misunderstood me. We were talking about > IPv6 addresses here. It seems that Hennings' ISP "only" offers a > delegated prefix but no global IPv6-address on the WAN-connection (or > there is an unknown issue acquiring said address which I don't know > of). I know that RFC 7084 requires a CER to actually deal with this > (Weak ES model and all) so I added a fix to allow the DS-Lite source > endpoint address to be acquired from a downstream interface. > > Cheers, > > Steven > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
