<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/9/22 2:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN9qwJ_iGxR7u_xwSwkAUdMGOaWOiB+TnuLGH+dWinHocrq5bg@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">IPv4 doesn't require NAT.
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>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.</div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>CGNat -- which is the alternative -- creates a double NAT. I
      poked around and it seems that affects quite a few games. <br>
    </p>
    <p>Mike<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN9qwJ_iGxR7u_xwSwkAUdMGOaWOiB+TnuLGH+dWinHocrq5bg@mail.gmail.com"><br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM
          Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mike@mtcc.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
          0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
          <div>
            <p><br>
            </p>
            <div>On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type="cite">
              <div dir="ltr">ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No
                IPv6.
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0
                  Complaints since 2006.</div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <p>Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?</p>
            <p>Mike<br>
            </p>
            <blockquote type="cite"><br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">
                <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at
                  4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <<a
                    href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank"
                    moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">nanog@nanog.org</a>>
                  wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 3/9/22 1:01 PM,
                  Jay Hennigan wrote:<br>
                  > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.<br>
                  <br>
                  I completely agree.<br>
                  <br>
                  I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing,
                  provisioning, <br>
                  repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.<br>
                  <br>
                  But I believe that any network equipment vendor that
                  is (or has been for <br>
                  the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really
                  has no excuse for <br>
                  not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.<br>
                  <br>
                  > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by
                  Ziply. They're doing <br>
                  > massive infrastructure work and recently started
                  offering symmetrical <br>
                  > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON
                  deployment. No <br>
                  > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to
                  reach a person who <br>
                  > even knew what it was.<br>
                  <br>
                  I've had similar lack of success with my municipal
                  GPON provider.  At <br>
                  least the people answering support tickets know what
                  IPv6 is and know <br>
                  that it's on their future list without even being in
                  planing / testing <br>
                  phase.<br>
                  <br>
                  > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No
                  IPv6, no plans for it.<br>
                  <br>
                  ....<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  -- <br>
                  Grant. . . .<br>
                  unix || die<br>
                  <br>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>