<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Inside an enduser's home network there's not a workable solution for coping with dynamically assigned prefixes from a provider. The current combination of AutoConf and DHCPv6 combined with what's mandatory and what's not leads to this - you'll end up with PCs/Macs/etc being very confused about what prefix to use and no connectivity at IPv6 level. <div><br><div><div>The PD features are available at the lowend from Cisco for LNS/LAC (eg. 72xx/73xx), but not the useful sized boxes necessary to do this at scale running SB train.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm very keen to have a workable, complete solution. But it's not there yet despite what people keep claiming. (If it was all done then I'd have it all running!)</div><div><br></div><div>MMC</div><div><div><br><div><div>On 18/03/2009, at 9:29 AM, Mark Smith wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Not sure about your argument.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The main problem is that at the moment that the standards that deliver v6 broadband in a general sense are still all draft and, at the moment, don't quite work together. (Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but ONLY if you can actually send me a complete set of receipes to do it as at least one Broadband Forum member has told me it can't be done yet). The main sticking point is prefix delegation and how that works in an end-user's network.<br></blockquote><br>What is the particular issue? Cisco routers support DHCP based prefix delegation, including automatically configuring downstream interfaces with the announced /48. It's a solved problem.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">Once this is fixed and people stop having pissing matches about who wins (AutoConf, DHCPv6 etc) we'll be sweet and the CPE vendors can finish their work.<br></blockquote><br>DHCPv6 is considered the most likely deployment model. RAs (i.e. AutoConf) are generally considered only to bootstrap basic IPv6 networking, for any thing else e.g. NTP config, DNS servers, prefix-delegation etc. DHCPv6 is considered to be the advanced end-node configuration protocol.<br><br>There is some lobbying to "bloat" up RAs with these types of options, however I think it is probably because people are a bit set in their view that if you use DHCPv6 methods it means you have to set up a separate server to the router. Of course, DHCP doesn't require that, as plenty of ADSL CPE shows.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">(Yes, you can do this in the simple case with static ranges etc, but that doesn't scale and doesn't work for normal people like my parents).<br></blockquote><br>What do you mean by doesn't scale and doesn't work for you parents?<br><br><blockquote type="cite">MMC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">dasmo wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Seems to me the problem is cash. ISPs won't eat it. Probably need it subsidised by the government. Some transit providers still aren't ipv6 compatible, there's customer equiptment that needs to be replaced and there's no authority setting a deadline like the digital tv system. Plus, it's hard to explain the benefits to an end user who will most likely see the issues now rather than a solution to an issue from the future.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Would be a better use of money than that stupid filter though.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 17/03/2009, at 16:57, Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:marksmith@adam.com.au">marksmith@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Geoff Huston wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I specifically remember a slip connection to Hawaii growing from 1200<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bps to 2400 bps preceeding the 56Kb frame relay connection.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><snip><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Yawn. That was years ago. On to today's problems. What are we going to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">do given that noone is doing anything remotely serious in IPv6 and the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">crunch time of IPv4 address exhaustion is getting ever closer? If we<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can't manage to preserve some level of protocol coherence across the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">network in the coming few years then we may end up not much better off<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">than the situation on 20 years ago. Or do we say goodbye to all this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">end-to-end IP stuff and just run client sever over http and forget<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">than anything else was ever possible?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I don't think Internet end-users are aware of the problem, let a alone<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what it is, why its occurring, and what the consequences will be. They<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">haven't been told what it is, and they don't know to ask for it.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">That seems to me to be a marketing problem. We need to get the message<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to the Internet end-user market that the Internet is heading towards a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wall, and needs to be upgraded. We need to explain in very simple terms,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what the problem is - "The Internet is running out of phone numbers!"<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(and then explain that public Internet addresses are like phone numbers)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">- I think should be a simple enough place to start.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Who should run this campaign? ISOC or the IPv6 Forum (or both) I reckon.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Regards,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Mark.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">AusNOG mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">AusNOG mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>-- <br>Matthew Moyle-Croft Internode/Agile Peering and Core Networks<br>Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia<br>Email: <a href="mailto:mmc@internode.com.au">mmc@internode.com.au</a> Web: <a href="http://www.on.net/">http://www.on.net</a><br>Direct: +61-8-8228-2909<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span> Mobile: +61-419-900-366<br>Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909<br></div></div></span></div></span> </div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>