Re: if not v6, what?

[Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>]

The vast majority of LTE based last mile users in developing nation
environments (where maybe less than 5% of people have residential wireline
broadband to their residence) are already behind a cgnat.

In many places it's actually an anomaly and weird for a person to desire,
or be able to afford, both a broadband internet connection at home with
wired router/801.11 AP, and also the (per GB) data service for their
cellphone. They choose to go with only the latter.




On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 6:00 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
wrote:

> 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