nanog mailing list archives
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
From: Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:28:37 -0500
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, "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? LeeSuppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Not necessarily. Maybe they need CGN, but they need NAT64, not NAT44. Or IVI. Or maybe they should just hold their noses and buy addresses for a year or a few. What they need a transition strategy; it doesn't necessarily have to be CGN. Years ago, I asked, "Why are we stuck with NAT?" I still ask that. I believe that the reason we're stuck with it is that so many of us believe we're stuck with it--we're resigned to failure, so we don't do anything about it. One of the largest problems we have with this transition is that no one believes they have any influence on it: "I'm stuck with IPv4 until every single other host on the Internet is using IPv6, and maybe for a while after that, depending on happy eyeballs." There are many levers of influence, but the most important ones to use are those that shift externalities. The cost in transition, either in IPv6 or in CGN (or both) will be incurred disproportionately by ISPs. Content providers who care most about quality experience (and usefulness of IP address information) now support IPv6. If you think creatively, you might come up with several levers that could shift the expense from "it's up to ISPs to translate" to "content and devices manufacturer businesses are at risk if they don't support IPv6." Then there's the question--how do you know when you're done? Every single host on the Internet is running IPv6? All but 100? A million? A billion? Probably somewhere in between, but each operator has to decide. Everyone else has to decide when to support IPv6--and hope it's before operators call the transition complete, because then it's too late, because consumers will choose the competitor's product or service that works (on IPv6). If Wordpress doesn't work because there's no IPv6, but Blogspot and Blogger do, maybe consumers just switch. Lee
Current thread:
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6, (continued)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Jeff Kell (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Eric Tykwinski (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Constantine A. Murenin (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Brandon Ross (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Seth Mos (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Lee Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Joe Maimon (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Lee Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 David Swafford (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Jimmy Hess (Jan 19)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Neil J. McRae (Jan 28)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 18)
- RE: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Jamie Bowden (Jan 22)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Andre Tomt (Jan 18)
- RE: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Voll, Toivo (Jan 23)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Joe Maimon (Jan 17)