Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Stuart Henderson
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - 4:16 pm

On 2008/01/08 22:15, Marc Balmer wrote:

their general setup is modified 6to4 (so they have no need to break
dslams while they get things up and running) in 2a01:5d8:xxxx:xxxx::/64
from their 2a01:5d8::/32 allocation. all the x's are needed for simple
mapping for 6to4, of course they won't all be used, but it won't leave
space between subscribers for more than one /64 each with that method.

i don't think they charge enough to handle special-cases.

talk to them anyway, if everyone just bodges their way around it with
bridging or nat and doesn't say anything, the ISP won't know people
are unhappy. but don't expect anything to change immediately because
of it...
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Good Good, (Tue Jan 8, 1:52 pm)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Marc Balmer, (Tue Jan 8, 2:15 pm)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Stuart Henderson, (Tue Jan 8, 4:16 pm)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Simon Vallet, (Wed Jan 9, 2:44 am)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Stéphane Chausson, (Wed Jan 9, 3:04 am)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Olivier Mehani, (Wed Jan 9, 3:45 am)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Simon Vallet, (Wed Jan 9, 3:59 am)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Claudio Jeker, (Wed Jan 9, 4:10 am)
Re: NAT IPV4 and bridge only IPV6, Stuart Henderson, (Wed Jan 9, 4:16 am)