Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
david at davidswafford.com
Sat Jan 19 04:39:51 UTC 2013
There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:48 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.
> Unfortunately, that may have the side effect of undercutting some portion of
> v6's value proposition, inversely related to its suckage.
More information about the NANOG