we use RFC6598 addressing and CGNAT on the edge unless someone pays for an
IP.  Very slowly getting IPv6 implementation down.  Poor CRM/Shaper support
for it being a big struggle.  Preseem+UISP for example requires that
whatever is handling IPv6 PD be pollable from preseem so they can grab
MAC:PD prefix and combine them.  VISP has implemented this better recently
but I haven't fully implemented yet, that's a goal for this month.

We don't 'tunnel' ie no MPLS/VPLS, SRV6, EVPN right now.  We technically do
GRE tunneling, terragraph works just like OSPFv3 on IPv6 w/ GRE tunnels.

Part of the reason not to tunnel is that we don't have a single headend, we
have regional POPs and interconnections between so we can reduce outages
caused by the POPs.  Fully routed seems to only non-convoluted way to
handle this.  Not interested in a VRRP moving my tunnel endpoint addresses
between regions, that's a mess.  And so we route.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 9:30 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
>