Re: Ipv6 help

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Because:

1) It needs *much less* IPv4 addresses (in the NAT64) for the same number of customers.
2) It provides the customers as many ports they need (no a limited number of ports per customer).
3) It is not blocked by PSN (don't know why because don't know how the games have problems with CGN).

You could share among an *almost unlimited* number of subscribers an small IPv4 block (even just a /22).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 26/8/20 22:31, "Brian Johnson" <brian.johnson () netgeek us> escribió:

    How does 464XLAT solve the problem if you are out of IPv4 space?

    > On Aug 26, 2020, at 3:23 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
    > 
    > They know we are there ... so they don't come!
    > 
    > By the way I missed this in the previous email: I heard (not sure how much true on that) that they are "forced" 
to avoid CGN because the way games are often programmed in PSP break them. So maybe will not be enough to sort out the 
problem with an OS and/or PSN change, all the affected games, will need to be adjusted.
    > 
    > Maybe the only way to force this is to tell our customers (many ISPs in every country) "don't buy Sony PS, they 
are unable to support new technologies, so you games will be blocked by Sony". Of course, unless we all decide to use 
464XLAT instead of CGN ... which resolves the problem.
    > 
    > A massive campaing could work ...
    > 
    > 
    > El 26/8/20 22:08, "NANOG en nombre de surfer" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es () nanog org en nombre 
de surfer () mauigateway com> escribió:
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >    On 8/26/20 9:28 AM, Tony Wicks wrote:
    >> They're the worst service company I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with, the arrogance and attitude of 
we are big, you are small we don't care about your customers was infuriating. Never have I seen a single call related 
to their opposition where as PSN accounted for about 10-20% of helpdesk calls. I don't understand why its seemingly 
impossible for them to implement ipv6 as almost everything I have deployed with CGN is dual stack V6.
    > 
    >    On 8/26/20 9:30 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
    >> We'll have to be creative with how we pressure them into getting serious
    >> about IPv6.
    > 
    > 
    >    Do those guys attend NANOG meetings?   >;-)   (evil smile)
    > 
    >    scott
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.theipv6company.com
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended 
to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached 
files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to 
inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached 
files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to 
inform about this communication and delete it.