Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Apr 20 08:12:58 CDT 2010


On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

>> In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459 at aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes:
>>>> That'd be easy if you were just starting up an ISP. What do you do with
>>>> your existing customer base? If their current service includes a
>>>> dynamic public IPv4 address, you can't gracefully take it away, without
>>>> likey violating services T&Cs, government telco regulations etc. So
>>>> you'll have to go through a formal process of getting agreement with
>>>> customers to take them away.
>>> 
>>> I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.
>> 
>> People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would
>> get a Internet address.  A address behind a NAT is not a Internet
>> address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different
>> thing.
> 
> People purchase mobile Internet service and get placed behind 
> carrier NAT.  People get free Internet at hotels and are almost
> always behind a NAT.  The terminology war is lost.
> 
Most hotels I have stayed in recently have a "Upgrade to public IP"
button which I routinely use.  I have never encountered an additional
charge for that public IP.

>>> Many/most people are _already_ behind a NAT gateway.
>> 
>> They are behind NAT44 which they deployed themselves and control
>> the configuration of themselves.  They can direct incoming traffic
>> as they see fit.  They are NOT restricted to UDP and TCP.
>> 
>> NAT444 is a different kettle of fish.  There are lots of things
>> that you do with a NAT44 that you can't do with a NAT444.
>> 
>> If all you do is browse the web and read email then you won't see
>> the much of a difference.  If you do anything more complicated than
>> making outgoing queries you will see the difference.
> 
> You *might* see the difference.  You might not, too.
> 
> And hey, just so we're clear here, I would *agree* that Internet access
> ought to mean an actual IP address with as little filtering, etc., as
> reasonable...  but we're exploring what happens at exhaustion here.  So
> I'm not interested in arguing this point; the fact of the matter is that
> we WILL hit exhaustion, and it's going to be a hell of an operational
> issue the day your subscribers cannot get an IP from the DHCP server
> because they're all allocated and in use.
> 
The good news is that in IPv6, it probably will mean that again.


Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list