<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>