Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Apr 20 10:13:52 CDT 2010


On Apr 20, 2010, at 7:53 AM, John Levine wrote:

>> But regardless of what it is called people usually know what they
>> signed up for and when what has worked for the 5-6 years suddenly
>> breaks ...
> 
> If a consumer ISP moved its customers from separate IPs to NAT, what
> do you think would break?  I'm the guy who was behind a double NAT for
> several months without realizing it, and I can report that the only
> symptom I noticed was incoming call flakiness on one of my VoIP
> phones, and even that was easy to fix by decreasing the registration
> interval.  The other VoIP phone worked fine in its default config.
> 
Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?  Did you use any of those for
Video Chat and/or to transfer files?

Did you do any peer to peer filesharing?

Did you play any MMOs?

Did you run any services?

> Other than the .01% of consumer customers who are mega multiplayer
> game weenies, what's not going to work?  Actual experience as opposed
> to hypothetical hand waving would be preferable.
> 
I hate to break it to you, but they are not 0.1%, they are more like 15%.

When you add in the other things that break which I have outlined above,
you start to approach 75%. I would argue that 75% is a significant and
meaningful fraction of an ISPs customer base.

> I'm not saying that NAT is wonderful, but my experience, in which day
> to day stuff all works fine, is utterly different from the doom and
> disaster routinely predicted here.
> 
Perhaps your day to day is different from others.  Perhaps people here
generally think in terms of servicing all of their customers. Perhaps
in many cases if just 1% of our customers are on the phone with our
technical support department, we are losing money.

YMMV.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list