nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGNAT
From: Tom Hill <tom () ninjabadger net>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 22:12:41 +0000
On 19/02/2021 20:11, Tony Wicks wrote:
Because then a large part of the Internet won't work....
Hey, look on the bright side: customers won't be able to use Twitter to complain! :D Ofc, IPv4aaS has many good success stories out there; Sky Italia are running MAP-T, many, many mobile ISPs are running 464XLAT with great success. We're in a situation where making IPv6 a *prerequisite* of your IPv4 connectivity can realistically improve your margins when some sort of CGNAT gateway is a requirement. Yes it requires looking at your CPE support, but if you're doing even 00,000's of subs, I'm sure the benefits aren't trivial when viewed through the lens of the number of connections that a single Chrome tab can happily chew through. -- Tom
Current thread:
- CGNAT Steve Saner (Feb 19)
- Re: CGNAT Owen DeLong (Feb 21)
- RE: CGNAT nanog () jima us (Feb 22)
- Re: CGNAT Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 23)
- Re: CGNAT JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Feb 23)
- DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Douglas Fischer (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Ca By (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Douglas Fischer (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Mark Andrews (Feb 24)
- RE: CGNAT nanog () jima us (Feb 22)