North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)

  • From: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Tue Oct 02 13:58:55 2007

Thus spake Duane Waddle
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <[email protected]> wrote:
If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
you're delusional.  That battle is long over.  The best we can hope
for is that those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.

Vendor C claims to support v6 (without NAT) in their "enterprise class" stateful firewall appliance as of OS version 7.2 (or thereabouts, perhaps 7.0). I've not tried it out yet to see how well it works.

Good for them. Perhaps one day their Divison L will wake up and do the same for consumer products.

But, as far as the home/home office goes -- will my cable/dsl
provider be able (willing?) to route a small v6 prefix to my home
so that I can use a bitty-box stateful v6 firewall without NAT?
What will be the cost to me, the home subscriber, to get said
routable prefix?  I am sure it increases the operator's expense
to route a prefix to most (if not every) broadband subscriber in
an area.

Pricing is, of course, up to the vendors and operators in question.

One possibility is that your CPE box would do a DHCP PD request for a /64 upstream, the /64 would come out of a pool for your POP. As the response came back downstream from whatever box managed the pool, routers would install the /64 in their tables to make it reachable. It wouldn't need to propogate any higher than the POP since the the POP's routers would be advertising a constant aggregate for the pool into the core.

Another possibility is that the operator would assign a /48 (or /56) to your cable/DSL modem, which would handle the above functions at the home level instead of the POP level. It would provide a /64 natively on its own interface, and delegate /64s to downstream devices on request. If customer-owned CPE boxes did the same thing, you could chain hundreds of them together and have a network that Just Worked(tm).

In the beginning, cable operators were reluctant to support home
customers using NAT routers to share their access.

Of course -- they were used to charging per television. However, they learned over time that they really wanted to charge for usage and the per-computer model didn't work like the per-television model did. Now they don't care about how many computers you have, just how many bits you move. That's a good thing.

Now, renting/selling NAT routers to customers has become a
revenue stream for some.

I bet they break even at best on the rentals, given how often the darn things die. One shipment and/or truck roll eliminates a year's profit margin on the equipment, even if the replacement box itself is free.

How does lack of v6 NAT affect all of this?

It prevents them from being characteristically stupid. However, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them demanded it from their vendors, though, or if their vendors caved to win a deal.


Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking