Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:54:14 +0100



On 4/8/13 9:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson <tore () fud no> wrote:

* 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.

Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
eliminated.



        I though that they have done it last year around June 8th.  ;-)

        In fact, the need for CGN has been reduced if you count that 30-40% of
your traffic would go to those places. Although CGN is going to be a
necessary evil, deploying CGN without IPv6 would be a mistake IMHO.

/as


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault