IPv6 woes - RFC
Michael Thomas
mike at mtcc.com
Mon Sep 13 00:16:09 UTC 2021
On 9/12/21 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I doubt many vendors were chomping at the bit to support CGNAT
> definitely. they hate to sell big expensive boxes.
Back in the early 2000's the first rumblings of what would eventually
turn into CGN started popping up at Cablelabs. I went to the EVP of
Service Provider and basically told him that he had a choice between
that mess or developing ipv6. I doubt he was interested in doing
anything at all, but he chose ipv6, at least in the abstract. Steve
Deering and I then went around to all of the BU's trying to figure out
what it would take for them to implement ipv6 in the routing plane.
Cablelabs was also pretty ipv6-focused too making a similar calculation.
So no, they weren't interested in it either. They were completely driven
by what the providers wanted and what a large group of providers have
since made pretty clear is that horrible hacks are fine by them if it
gets them out of a short term bind. But it's hardly uniform across the
industry. This is a classic reverse-tragedy of the commons.
Mike
More information about the NANOG
mailing list