Re: V6 still not supported

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 3/9/22 2:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> IPv4 doesn't require NAT.
>
> But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the 
> complaints about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead 
> of open.  These complaints are super rare.

CGNat -- which is the alternative -- creates a double NAT. I poked 
around and it seems that affects quite a few games.

Mike


> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >     ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
> >
> >     Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
>
>     Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?
>
>     Mike
>
> >     On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG
> >     <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> >
> >         On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> >         > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
> >
> >         I completely agree.
> >
> >         I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing,
> >         provisioning,
> >         repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
> >
> >         But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or
> >         has been for
> >         the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no
> >         excuse for
> >         not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.
> >
> >         > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply.
> >         They're doing
> >         > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering
> >         symmetrical
> >         > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON
> >         deployment. No
> >         > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a
> >         person who
> >         > even knew what it was.
> >
> >         I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON
> >         provider.  At
> >         least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is
> >         and know
> >         that it's on their future list without even being in planing
> >         / testing
> >         phase.
> >
> >         > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no
> >         plans for it.
> >
> >         ....
> >
> >
> >
> >         -- 
> >         Grant. . . .
> >         unix || die