Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[Oliver Garraux <oliver () g garraux net>]

If I'm an ISP deploying a network for users today, I effectively have to
provide some mechanism to allow those users to get to IPv4 only content.
 There is way too much stuff out there that is IPv4 only today.

Yes, content providers should provide IPv6 access....but if I'm an ISP, I
can't really control that aspect.  If I provide users with a service that
isn't able to connect to 80% of websites (to say nothing of VPN's,
corporate email services, etc, that people may need), I'm not going to have
a whole lot of business.

Now - I completely agree that ISP's must start deploying IPv6 natively.
 Legacy equipment that doesn't support IPv6 is not an acceptable
excuse....its just evidence of poor decision making and short-sighed
purchasing decisions.  CGN clearly isn't ideal and doesn't mitigate the
need for native IPv6 connectivity.  But right now, native IPv6 connectivity
is still not a substitute for some level of IPv4 connectivity, even if its
CGN'ed.

Oliver

-------------------------------------

Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog:  blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter:  twitter.com/olivergarraux


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
> >
> > > CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism
> through IPv6
> > > At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
> > > Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
> >
> > CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
> water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).
> >
>
> True... But... Resources deploying/maintaining all of these keep
> IPv4-limping along technologies are resources taken away from IPv6
> deployment.
>
> > My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
> anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address
> exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.
> >
>
> Not really...
>
> > Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet
> subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a
> completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for
> IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP
> is also CGN.
> >
>
> No, it really isn't. Sufficient IPv6 deployment at the content side would
> actually allow the subscriber side to be IPv4 or dual-stack for existing
> customers with new customers receiving IPv6-only. The missing piece there
> is actually the set-top coversion unit for IPv4-only devices. (Ideally, a
> dongle which can be plugged into the back of an IPv4-only device with an
> IPv6-only jack on the other side. Power could be done a number of ways,
> including POE (with optional injector), USB, or other.
>
> > I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I
> don't understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?
>
> IPv6 deployment _IS_ the alternative. They are not orthogonal.
>
> Owen