RE: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Hi Marting, All your messages are true. But these are not all the complexities.
Read here (if you like) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fbnvv-v6ops-site-multihoming-03.
to see how deep is the rabbit hole and why it is better not to touch it.
Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Martin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 18:55
To: nanog () lists nanog org
Cc: Brandon Martin <lists.nanog () monmotha net>
Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales)

On 11/5/25 08:12, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
> Try to propagate the ISP prefix over a few hops of the routed network (on the site of some business). DHCPv6-PD or 
> whatever.
> Then read the documents of the closed IETF WG "Home Networking" to understand what a mess is it.

DHCPv6-PD with static memory at the delegating router is not the only way to propagate prefixes.  It is an option, and 
it is the least-common-denominator option that is intended to make things usable for plug-and-play home users, but for 
people who have more complex network typologies yet still require a high degree of address agility, there are other 
ways to go about things.

In fact, that's one of the reasons why people even bothered to make RIPng.

If you have a complex network architecture and don't want to have to re-number, either acquire a truly static prefix 
from your provider (marrying you to your provider) or justify getting your own GUA prefix from an RIR and find a 
service provider that will route it for you. 
That's no different than IPv4 modulo the use of NAT.

If you REALLY want to be able to switch globally-routable prefixes at the drop of a hat, that's what NPT at the edge 
and ULA in the network is for.  No, it's not an option that you are encouraged to use and for various good reasons, but 
it does exist and solves that problem in a way that is no worse than NAT44 and in a way that can be substantially 
lighter weight (in particular, it can easily be made stateless).

And if you REALLY, REALLY want straight up NAT66, it exists, and it works basically the same way as the NAT44 we're all 
used to and groan about.

None of this is new.  This has been the state of affairs for a couple decades, basically.

--
Brandon Martin
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/DDOM67P4UAZFNII46VXG4QBZQNZKHLEW/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/GURBFBSW64W7GPRLQPKNUG5U2XUHLOGL/