Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Sun Apr 7 07:31:22 UTC 2013

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:

> CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
> At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
> Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64

CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the 
water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).

My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping 
anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address 
exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.

Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet 
subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a 
completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for 
IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. 
MAP is also CGN.

I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I don't 
understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se