Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 18 17:57:34 UTC 2013
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
> Lee Howard wrote:
>> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
>> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
>> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
>> by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
>> effect. Also, spending money on CGN seems misguided; if you agree that
>> you're going to deploy IPv6 anyway, why spend the money for IPv6 *and
>> also* for CGN?
> Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Actually, NAT64/DNS64 is a much better alternative in that situation. The bigger issue is customers who still have v4-only devices and some reasonable expectation that those will
continue to be supported.
> Unfortunately, that may have the side effect of undercutting some portion of v6's value proposition, inversely related to its suckage.
Which is why I consider the consumer electronics industry to be the important frontier in getting IPv6 support at this point. All of these smart TVs, DVD players, receivers, etc. that don't support IPv6 are going to be the real problem in deploying non-IPv4 service to residential customers in the coming years.
More information about the NANOG