Re: Carrier Grade NAT

[Julien Goodwin <nanog () studio442 com au>]

On 29/07/14 22:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
> > In message <20140729225352.GO7836 () hezmatt org>, Matt Palmer writes:
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> > > > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> > > > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> > > > people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's
> > > > internet access)
> > >
> > > Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so
> > > that those who want to use it can do so?  To my way of thinking, CGNAT is
> > > probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the
> > > broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*.
> >
> > Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
> > the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE.  That's a lot less logging you
> > need to do from day 1.
>
> That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true.
>
> Though it will be an increasing percentage over time.
>
> Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit
> that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Being on the content provider side I don't know the actual percentages
in practice, but in the NANOG region you've got Google/Youtube, NetFlix,
Akamai & Facebook all having a significant amount of their services v6
native.

I'd be very surprised if these four together weren't a majority of any
consumer-facing network's traffic in peak times.