Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:59:32 +0200

* Owen DeLong

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

I agree with "very much reduced". However, and IMHO, "virtually
eliminated" is completely unrealistic.

The less you have to depend on CGN as an ISP, the better your life will be.

As such, it is even more vital today than it was in history to keep the pressure
for IPv6 content strong.
Bottom line, content providers are the low-hanging fruit in terms of the
easiest and fastest way to have the biggest impact in reducing the need
for and load on CGN deployments.

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.

It's not the only piece, just the easiest one to solve immediately with the
biggest payoff.

I agree fully that the continued deployment of IPv6 on the content side
and all other places is a benefit to any ISP that is providing IPv6 to
their subscribers alongside CGN. The payoff is reduced customer
unhappiness due to the effects of CGN, and reducing the amount of
investment in CGN necessary.

But the payoff is not going to be avoiding to have to implement CGN (or
similar IPv4 life-support mechanisms, including MAP) in the first place,
no matter how hard one pushes for IPv6. In order for that that to be the
case, *all* the missing pieces must fall in place, not only the
biggest/easiest ones -  and there's simply too many small and tricky
ones left, and too little time. I cannot see any realistic outcome of
the ordeal we're currently in that does not include CGN or similar stuff
to handle the long tail of IPv4-only stuff. It's simply too late for
IPv6 to prevent CGN.

I'd be absolutely delighted, though, if I'm wrong and you're able to say
to me a few years from now «I told you so»! :-)


  By Date           By Thread  

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