Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:

> Lee Howard wrote:
>
> > You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
> > Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
> > then everyone has to deploy it.  If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
> > by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
> > effect.  Also, spending money on CGN seems misguided; if you agree that
> > you're going to deploy IPv6 anyway, why spend the money for IPv6 *and
> > also* for CGN?
> >
> >
> > Lee
>
> Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as they have customers who want to access the 
> v4 internet.

Actually, NAT64/DNS64 is a much better alternative in that situation. The bigger issue is customers who still have 
v4-only devices and some reasonable expectation that those will
continue to be supported.

> Unfortunately, that may have the side effect of undercutting some portion of v6's value proposition, inversely 
> related to its suckage.

Which is why I consider the consumer electronics industry to be the important frontier in getting IPv6 support at this 
point. All of these smart TVs, DVD players, receivers, etc. that don't support IPv6 are going to be the real problem in 
deploying non-IPv4 service to residential customers in the coming years.

Owen