RE: V6 still not supported

["Tony Wicks" <tony () wicks co nz>]

Over here in AsiaPAC we ran out of readily available IPv4 many years ago. I’ve been deploying dual stack CGNAT v4 + 
Public V6 to ISP networks for at least 10 years. Virtually all modern RGW’s and devices (except *** play station) have 
supported V6 transparently for many years and the customer’s have no clue they are using V6. V6 accounts for about 60% 
of customer traffic due to widespread support on CDN’s and this reduces the requirement for services card capacity 
(ISA/ESA on Nokia, MS-MPC on Juniper) on the CGNAT device’s. As a general rule if a customer actually notices and 
complains about CGN (again *** Playstation) the rule has generally been, sure here is a static v4 ip, bye now. Those 
customers who notice run at about 100 per 10,000 customers as a general rule. So 10K customers = a /24 for CGN pools 
and a /25 for static IP’s and you are good to go. Every customer gets a /56 of v6. While I’m not a V6 fanboy it really 
does work just fine and works well enough that the end customers have absolutely no clue its turned on. It takes little 
extra effort to enable it when you are deploying a new network element and there is almost universal device support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tony=wicks.co.nz () nanog org> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2022 11:12 am
To: Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported

 

 

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