mailing list archives
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).
My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address
exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.
Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet
subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a
completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for
IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access.
MAP is also CGN.
I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I don't
understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Constantine A. Murenin (Apr 07)