Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 03:19:55 +0000

Hi Tom,

The key take-away is that MAP doesn't _necessarily_ require IPv6 prefix to
be constructed in a special way (so as to encode the IPv4 address inside
it).
 

Please see more inline,

I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change.

Yes. 

I would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.

It can work even in that realm as well (IPv6 PD assumed). There are pros &
cons of doing this, suffice to say.

Cheers,

Rajiv


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds () gmail com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:51 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

I think what that screenshot is saying is that after you deploy MAP,
then if you stop using it the IPv6 addresses don't need to change. I
would assume you're not saying that you can take your IPv6 addresses as
you find them and interpret them as MAP End-user prefixes.

Tom

On 08/04/2013 5:38 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Hi Tom,

Good question.

The End-user IPv6 prefix can be constructed using whatever techniques
independent of MAP etc. in any deployment requiring IPv4 address
sharing.

What is interesting is that the MAP enabled CPE could parse certain bits
of that IPv6 prefix to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
screenshot to illustrate this very point.

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds () gmail com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
To: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4
over
IPv6 alternative.

Tom

On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Chris,

UmmmÅ  you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
encumbered?

If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.


Cheers,
Rajiv

...





  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]