Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Forrest:

1)    I have a question:

    If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to 
communicate (voice and data) directly between two homes in private like 
the dial-up modem operations in the PSTN? If so, is it available 
anywhere right now?

Regards,


Abe (2024-01-15 15:20)


> Let me start with I think we're largely on the same page here.
>
> The transition I see happening next is that the consumer traffic 
> largely moves to IPv6 with no CG-NAT.  That is, if you're at home or 
> on your phone watching video or doing social media or using whatever 
> app is all the rage it's going to be over IPv6.
>
> My point was largely that I believe that at some point the big 
> consumer (not business) focused companies are going to realize they 
> can use market forces to encourage the remaining IPv4-only eyeball 
> networks to transition to support IPv6 connections from their 
> customers.  I don't know if the timeframe is next year or 20 years 
> from now,  but I do know the tech companies are very good at looking 
> at the costs of maintaining backwards compatibility with old tech and 
> figuring out ways to shed those costs when they no longer make sense. 
> If they can utilize various forms of pressure to make this happen 
> quicker, I fully expect them to do so.
>
> Inside a business network,  or even at home,  it wouldn't surprise me 
> if we're both long gone before IPv4 is eradicated.   I know there is 
> going to be a lot of IPv4 in my network for years to come just because 
> of product lifecycles.
>
> As far as "CG-NAT-like" technologies go (meaning NAT in a provider's 
> network), they're unfortunately going to be with us for a long time 
> since customers seem to want to be able to reach everything regardless 
> of the IPv4 or IPv6 status of the customer or endpoint.   I also 
> expect that most service providers with business customers are going 
> to be carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 for a long time, not to mention 
> doing a fair bit of translation in both directions.
>
> I won't go deeply into the whole IPv4 vs IPv6 discussion for a 
> business customer's "public address" because the topic is far too 
> nuanced for an email to cover them accurately.   Suffice it to say 
> that I don't disagree that business today largely wants IPv4, but some 
> seem to be becoming aware of what IPv6 can do and are looking to have 
> both options available to them, at least outside the firewall.
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 2:04 AM Brett O'Hara <brett () fj com au> wrote:
>
>     Ok you've triggered me on your point 2.  I'll address the elephant
>     in the room.
>
>     IPv4 is never ever going away.
>
>     Right now consumer services are mostly (mobile, wireless,
>     landline, wide generalization) are IPv6 capable.  Most consumer
>     applications are ipv6 capable, Google, Facebook, etc.There is
>     light at the very end of the tunnel that suggests that one day we
>     won't have to deploy CGNAT444 for our consumers to get to content,
>     we may only have to do NAT64 for them to get to the remaining Ipv4
>     Internet.  We're still working hard on removing our reliance on
>     genuine ipv4 ranges to satisfy our customer needs, It's still a
>     long way off, but it's coming.
>
>     Here's the current problem.  Enterprise doesn't need ipv6 or want
>     ipv6.  You might be able to get away with giving CGNAT to your
>     consumers, but your enterprise customer will not accept this. How
>     will they terminate their remote users?  How will they do B2B with
>     out inbound NAT?  Yes, there are solutions, but if you don't need
>     to, why?  They pay good money, why can't they have real ipv4?  All
>     their internal networks are IPv4 rfc1918.  They are happy with
>     NAT.  Their application service providers are ipv4 only. Looking
>     at the services I access for work things like SAP, SerivceNow,
>     Office386, Sharepoint, Okta, Dayforce, Xero, and I'm sure many
>     more, none can not be accessed on ipv6 alone..  Their internal
>     network lifecycle is 10+ years.  They have no interest in trying
>     new things or making new technology work without a solid financial
>     reason and there is none for them implementing ipv6.   And guess
>     where all the IP addresses we're getting back from our consumers
>     are going?  Straight to our good margin enterprise customers and
>     their application service providers.  Consumer CGNAT isn't solving
>     problems, it's creating more.
>
>     The end of IPv4 isn't nigh, it's just privileged only.
>
>     PS When you solve that problem in 50 years time, I'll be one of
>     those old fogey's keeping an IPv4 service alive as an example of
>     "the old Internet" for those young whippersnappers to be amazed by.
>
>     Regards,
>        Brett

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com