Re: if not v6, what?

[Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

On 9/5/21 3:28 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I looked up CGN's this morning and the thing that struck me the most was 
> losing port forwarding. It's probably a small thing to most people but 
> losing it means to get an incoming session it always has to be mediated 

> by something on the outside. Yuck. So I hope that is not what the future 
> hold, though it probably does.

I think we are heading into a world where Internet is going to be 
bifurcated with "/on/ the Internet" (with globally routed IP 
address(es)) or "/access/ /to/ the Internet" (with one or more layers of 
CGN).

I think that the vast majority of consumers would be content with the 
latter while a small minority will demand the former.

Content hosting will almost definitely require the former.  (Wiggle room 
is for other arrangements that can be made.)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature