V6 still not supported
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.
> 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?
>> 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,
>> 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
>> > 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
>> > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no
>> plans for it.
>> Grant. . . .
>> unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG