V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 9 22:11:42 UTC 2022


On 3/9/22 2:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> IPv4 doesn't require NAT.
>
> But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the 
> complaints about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead 
> of open.  These complaints are super rare.

CGNat -- which is the alternative -- creates a double NAT. I poked 
around and it seems that affects quite a few games.

Mike


>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>     ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
>>
>>     Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
>
>     Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?
>
>     Mike
>
>>
>>     On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG
>>     <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>>
>>         On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>>         > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
>>
>>         I completely agree.
>>
>>         I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing,
>>         provisioning,
>>         repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
>>
>>         But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or
>>         has been for
>>         the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no
>>         excuse for
>>         not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.
>>
>>         > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply.
>>         They're doing
>>         > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering
>>         symmetrical
>>         > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON
>>         deployment. No
>>         > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a
>>         person who
>>         > even knew what it was.
>>
>>         I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON
>>         provider.  At
>>         least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is
>>         and know
>>         that it's on their future list without even being in planing
>>         / testing
>>         phase.
>>
>>         > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no
>>         plans for it.
>>
>>         ....
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Grant. . . .
>>         unix || die
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220309/1f8ed951/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list