Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Apr 20 12:38:17 CDT 2010

On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The hardware cost of supporting LSN is trivial. The management/maintenance
>> costs and the customer experience -> dissatisfaction -> support calls ->
>> employee costs will not be so trivial.
> Interesting opinion but not backed up by experience.
Since nobody has experience with LSN, that's a pretty easy statement to make.

However, given the tech. support costs of single-layer NAT and the number of
support calls I've seen from other less disruptive maintenance actions at various
providers where I have worked, I think that in terms of applicable related
experience available, yes, this is backed by experience.

> By contrast John Levine wrote:
>> My small telco-owned ISP NATs all of its DSL users, but you can get your
>> own IP on request. They have about 5000 users and I think they said I was
>> the eighth to ask for a private IP. I have to say that it took several
>> months to realize I was behind a NAT
> I'd bet good money John's experience is a better predictor of what will
> begin occurring when the supply of IPv4 addresses runs low.  Then as now
> few consumers are likely to notice or care.
ROFL... John has already made it clear that his usage profile is particularly
NAT friendly compared to the average user.

> Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the
> transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols.
> Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored.
Uh, no.  Interesting how the wilful ignorance around NAT and IPv6
is both delaying IPv6 transition and being used as an excuse to make
things even worse for customers in the future.

> That said the underlying issue is still about choice.  We (i.e., the
> IETF) should be giving consumers the _option_ of NAT in IPv6 so they
> aren't required to use it in IPv4.
I guess that depends on whose choice you are interested in preserving.


More information about the NANOG mailing list