Re: IPv4 flag day

The point I've been trying to make is beyond specific support on specific
platforms, or even beyond the specific SMB-Dual-Internet NAT use case (but
I do believe it's a major gap).

The point is about best practices, documentation, and industry guidance.

Every book, document or standard right now says "IPv6 doesn't support NAT
and you shouldn't be using it".
It also has a list of complicated "best practices" (e.g. host based public
prefix selection).

These things confuse the average operator (the audience I'm referring to is
not the average CCIE, but the average SMB sysadmin), and most of them are
just too busy to care. It's that simple.

For the thought experiment... What would be the reaction if someone came on
stage at the next NANOG session and presented the NAT66 use case for dual
Internet SMBs? Would they get an apploase, or some nasty "questions"?

Tnx,
Arie


On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 8:45 AM Brandon Jackson via NANOG <
[email protected]> wrote:

> routerOS v7 (2021) supports IPv6 NAT66/NPT
> A quick search also shows that Vyatta supports NAT66/NPT
> edgeOS, well its Ubiquiti, what do you expect when trying to use trash?
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> Brandon Jackson
> [email protected]
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 11:29 AM Matthew Petach via NANOG
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 00:32 Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Am 17.06.26 um 08:29 schrieb Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG:
> > > > Has any CPE vendor implemented the redundancy NPTv6 scheme (with all
> > > IPv6 features) that Matthew mentioned for NAT44?
> > >
> > > No, as normal CPE devices are used by home users. They don't need that.
> > > Business users buy professional devices and use BGP or other routing
> > > protocols for real redundancy.
> > >
> >
> >
> > *facepalm*
> >
> > No, my small business with 15 people doesn't buy Juniper routers with two
> > BGP upstreams and pay ARIN for an ASN and provider independent IP space.
> >
> > But it *does* still want to be able to get work done on the Internet when
> > ISP A goes down by using ISP B.
> >
> > You seem to be denying the existence of all the small businesses in the
> > world.
> > Given that Google estimates there are 200 to 400 million enterprises with
> > less than 50 employees worldwide,  that's a pretty big chunk of the
> > business world to ignore.
> >
> > Or are you suggesting that 400 million small businesses should get their
> > own ASNs and provider independent IPv6 space, and use BGP to gain
> > redundancy for their businesses?
> >
> > (talk about driving a demand for more router RAM for the DFZ core!   ;-P
> )
> >
> >
> > > > Reminder: 6man WG makes all possible efforts to block NPTv6.
> > >
> > > It already exists, IIRC Cisco IOS supports that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Too bad every small business using edgeOS or Vyatta or routerOS is left
> > out--no NPTv6 or NAT66 for them.  But that was some pretty good shilling
> > for Cisco there.  ;)
> >
> > In all seriousness, I hope we're coming to the realization that there's a
> > big use case that is not currently well supported on the V6 world, and
> > telling hundreds of millions of small businesses to add to the
> BGP-speaking
> > core routing tables is probably *not* the right answer.  Unless of course
> > you want Geoff Huston to do a NANOG talk entitled "What The Hell Just
> > Happened?" with a hockey-stick shaped graph showing the number of ASNs in
> > the v6 routing tables.  :/
> >
> > In summary: there are still technical hurdles to deploying IPv6 that we
> > created through our decisions long ago that need to be solved before we
> can
> > start talking about sunsetting IPv4.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Gruß
> > > Marco
> > > Muell und Spam bitte an [email protected]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> > >
> > >
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/64HPVUSE2EXJH664UAY3T4YJX2G3VQET/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TXYK36SDIONPF72NKIEY6XHR7DDCBD7G/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CKUBVOP46YDAYPT4SOWY7BSJ2QCF2MZW/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5BRWSUQ7HLL37RFV3PFFIJTVCJ5MXX7S/