Re: [LibreQoS] how are you doing on ipv4 address supply?

[Herbert Wolverson <herberticus@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2455 bytes --]

Actually had a conversation with our primary upstream provider yesterday
about IPv6 (and why
they won't provide it to us). One of their lead engineers, once plied with
beer, said that every
time they've deployed it they get 99% of it working well and 1% of things
mysteriously
stop working, or go wonky. That was similar to our experience a few years
ago. It mostly
helped a lot, but chasing down the "hey, this advertises a v6 address and
doesn't actually
support it" issues drove us crazy.

Right now, we don't have enough IPv4 addresses, but that's being rectified.
We mostly
do CGNAT and 10.64 addresses in the meantime, with public IPs assigned
where they
are needed (mostly through a tunnel setup to avoid subnetting waste).
Tunnels are a pain,
but they work (once you chase down all of the MTU issues).

Which reminds me, I have "can we support MPLS?" on my crazy notes list. I
know that
Preseem and similar don't try, but we're already reading deeply enough into
the ethernet
header that saying "this is an MPLS label, advance 4 bytes", "this is a
VPLS label, advance
X (I forget) bytes" looks do-able. [Note, I personally don't enjoy MPLS.
It's handy when
you want to pretend to have a flat network on top of a large routed network
- and some
WISP consultants absolutely swear by it - but my experience is that you are
adding
complexity for the sake of it. Routing works remarkably well.]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> in my continued rip-van-winkle, living in the third world (california)
> way, I am curious as to how y'all are managing your
> ipv4 address supply and if you are deploying ipv6 to any extent?
>
> In all this discussion of multi-gbit fiber, my own direct experience
> is that AT&T's fiber rollout had very flaky ipv6, and more and more
> services (like starlink) are appearing behind cgnats, which have their
> own capex and opex costs.
>
> I see a lot of rfc1918 being used as the operational overlay
> elsewhere, tons of tunnels, also.
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3335 bytes --]