Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Ken A <ka () pacific net>]

On 2/9/2011 3:50 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 4:36 PM, Ken A wrote:
> > 10/8 is the management network on my cable modem. The cable modem
> > bridges your wan 'real' ip(s) through to your PC or router. At least
> > that's how Suddenlink does it here. The customer is normally 'locked
> > out' of the cable modem, unlike a dsl modem. The largest NATs are
> > presumably w/mobile carriers. I've never been behind NAT (except one I
> > controlled) on a consumer dsl or cable link in the US.
> > Ken
>
> Agreed on the cable side (DOCSIS at least) but most of the DSL systems
> I've seen are doing NAT on virtually all of the end user gear.

End user gear = gear I control.. so I can 'make it work', poke holes 
where needed, no worries, 64k ports, etc. I thought we were talking 
about CGNAT taking over the world due to v4 scarcity.
Ken


Bell
> South, SBC, Verizon, and Pac Bell are all doing or in the recent past
> did most/all of their DSL installs this way. Bell South tried using a
> brouter (only one I've seen in the wild) that did PPPoE on the WAN side
> and then handed out the same address it was assigned via DHCP on the LAN
> interface, but it was problematic (imagine that) and they stopped using
> it some years before the AT&T purchase/merger.
>
> The smaller telcos are almost universally doing NAT as well providers
> like Alltel, Centurytel, Frontier, Finepoint, as well as the smaller
> ILEC's simply don't do bridging on their CPE gear since they seldom had
> their DSLAMs set up to deal with Q-in-Q or isolation methods. That's not
> to say I don't know some that are the exception since I do know of a few
> telcos that run PPPoE clients on the client PC and a handful that did
> get port isolation working but they are not the norm in the US.

--
Ken Anderson
Pacific Internet - http://www.pacific.net