One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

Fri Jan 19 09:02:11 UTC 2024

Any host connected to a reasonably well peered ISP (e.g. NOT Cogent) with IPv6 should be able to communicate with any other such host so long as the administrative policies on both sides permit it.

I have no difficulty directly reaching a variety of IPv6 hosts from the /48 in my home.

However, it’s not like dial-up modem operations in the PSTN in that IP is an inherently connectionless packet switched service while modems were an inherently circuit switched connection oriented service.

However, it does work like IPv4 used to work before NAT made everything horrible.

Owen

> On Jan 15, 2024, at 12:20, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Forrest:
> 
> 1)    I have a question: 
> 
>     If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to communicate (voice and data) directly between two homes in private like the dial-up modem operations in the PSTN? If so, is it available anywhere right now?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Abe (2024-01-15 15:20)
> 
> 
>> Let me start with I think we're largely on the same page here.    
>> 
>> The transition I see happening next is that the consumer traffic largely moves to IPv6 with no CG-NAT.  That is, if you're at home or on your phone watching video or doing social media or using whatever app is all the rage it's going to be over IPv6. 
>> 
>> My point was largely that I believe that at some point the big consumer (not business) focused companies are going to realize they can use market forces to encourage the remaining IPv4-only eyeball networks to transition to support IPv6 connections from their customers.  I don't know if the timeframe is next year or 20 years from now,  but I do know the tech companies are very good at looking at the costs of maintaining backwards compatibility with old tech and figuring out ways to shed those costs when they no longer make sense.  If they can utilize various forms of pressure to make this happen quicker, I fully expect them to do so. 
>> 
>> Inside a business network,  or even at home,  it wouldn't surprise me if we're both long gone before IPv4 is eradicated.   I know there is going to be a lot of IPv4 in my network for years to come just because of product lifecycles.   
>> 
>> As far as "CG-NAT-like" technologies go (meaning NAT in a provider's network), they're unfortunately going to be with us for a long time since customers seem to want to be able to reach everything regardless of the IPv4 or IPv6 status of the customer or endpoint.   I also expect that most service providers with business customers are going to be carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 for a long time, not to mention doing a fair bit of translation in both directions.  
>> 
>> I won't go deeply into the whole IPv4 vs IPv6 discussion for a business customer's "public address" because the topic is far too nuanced for an email to cover them accurately.   Suffice it to say that I don't disagree that business today largely wants IPv4, but some seem to be becoming aware of what IPv6 can do and are looking to have both options available to them, at least outside the firewall.
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 2:04 AM Brett O'Hara <brett at fj.com.au <mailto:brett at fj.com.au>> wrote:
>>> Ok you've triggered me on your point 2.  I'll address the elephant in the room.
>>> 
>>> IPv4 is never ever going away.
>>> 
>>> Right now consumer services are mostly (mobile, wireless, landline, wide generalization) are IPv6 capable.  Most consumer applications are ipv6 capable, Google, Facebook, etc.There is light at the very end of the tunnel that suggests that one day we won't have to deploy CGNAT444 for our consumers to get to content, we may only have to do NAT64 for them to get to the remaining Ipv4 Internet.  We're still working hard on removing our reliance on genuine ipv4 ranges to satisfy our customer needs, It's still a long way off, but it's coming.
>>> 
>>> Here's the current problem.  Enterprise doesn't need ipv6 or want ipv6.  You might be able to get away with giving CGNAT to your consumers, but your enterprise customer will not accept this. How will they terminate their remote users?  How will they do B2B with out inbound NAT?  Yes, there are solutions, but if you don't need to, why?  They pay good money, why can't they have real ipv4?  All their internal networks are IPv4 rfc1918.  They are happy with NAT.  Their application service providers are ipv4 only. Looking at the services I access for work things like SAP, SerivceNow, Office386, Sharepoint, Okta, Dayforce, Xero, and I'm sure many more, none can not be accessed on ipv6 alone..  Their internal network lifecycle is 10+ years.  They have no interest in trying new things or making new technology work without a solid financial reason and there is none for them implementing ipv6.   And guess where all the IP addresses we're getting back from our consumers are going?  Straight to our good margin enterprise customers and their application service providers.  Consumer CGNAT isn't solving problems, it's creating more.
>>> 
>>> The end of IPv4 isn't nigh, it's just privileged only.
>>> 
>>> PS When you solve that problem in 50 years time, I'll be one of those old fogey's keeping an IPv4 service alive as an example of "the old Internet" for those young whippersnappers to be amazed by.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>    Brett
>>> 
> 
>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <x-msg://12/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240119/757afb42/attachment.html>