dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed
This is a sub-selection from do they really need "the big one?"

Phil Karn2

join:2004-06-14
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

reply to Customer

Re: do they really need "the big one?"

said by Customer :

I don't understand what any of this this has to do with IPV6.

It doesn't have anything to do with IPv6. They want to use the 10.0.0.0/8 block themselves, and so you can't use it.

Now it's possible that they'll use that block only to address their own routers that the customer's routers peer with. A lot of networks already do this because their own routers never have to be addressed by anyone but the NOC or the users when setting up a default route. The end users could still have public addresses.

But I agree it's more likely that AT&T will also want to assign them to the upstream interface on your router, in place of the public and routable IPv4 address you now have. And that will break a lot of things, just as everyone has said it will.

Whenever I use the phrase "carrier grade NAT" I always put it in quotation marks.

Certainly, the best way to get that functionality back is to implement IPv6. The problem is that it's not entirely up to me. Sure, I have implemented it on my own home network; I've set up a 6rd tunnel and every device that can speak IPv6 is speaking IPv6. But not all, and I don't control their firmware.

Nor do I control the routers on all the various public hotspots that I visit. Nearly all of them stick you behind a NAT that will make it impossible for you to contact your own server at home once AT&T puts it behind a NAT. Even with IPv6 at home, you still need the hotspot operator to implement IPv6 (or use a godawful kludge like Teredo).

That's just the problem. It's not a question of any one individual agreeing to implement IPv6, it's that we're all dependent on others to implement it on networks that we do not control.