mailing list archives
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:27:17 +0200
* Owen DeLong
The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
is caused by it.
In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be no IPv4
depletion, and there would be no CGN. However, that ship has sailed long
ago. You're using present tense where you should have used past.
I was responding to Mikael's claim that pushing content providers to
deploy IPv6 was orthogonal to the need for CGN.
If we put down the history books and focus on today's operational
realities, it *is* orthogonal. If you're an ISP fresh out of IPv4
addresses today, "pushing content providers to deploy IPv6" is simply
not a realistic strategy to deal with it. CGN is.
Clearly your statement here indicates that you see my point that it
is NOT orthogonal, but, in fact the failure of content providers to
deploy IPv6 _IS_ the driving cause for CGN.
I'm not sure why you are singling out content providers, BTW. There are
no shortage of other things out there that have an absolute hard
requirement on IPv4 to function properly. Gaming consoles, Android
phones and tables, iOS phones and tablets, home gateways, software
and apps, embedded devices, ... - the list goes on and on.
If the only missing piece of the puzzle was the lack of IPv6 support at
the content providers' side, IPv6+NAT64 would constitute a perfectly
viable residential/cellular internet service. As far as I know, however,
not a single provider is seriously considering this strategy going
forward. That's telling.
 From what I hear, anyway. They used to work fine on IPv6-only
wireless networks, I've seen it myself, but I've been told that it's
taken a turn for the worse over the course of the last year.