Re: One Can't Have It Both Ways Re: Streamline the CG-NAT Re: EzIP Re: IPv4 address block

[Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au>]

You most certainly can, it's called a VPN. One side initiates a connection
to the other.

;)

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 07:21, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com> wrote:

> Hi, Forrest:
>
> 1)    I have a question:
>
>     If I subscribe to IPv6, can I contact another similar subscriber to
> communicate (voice and data) directly between two homes in private like the
> dial-up modem operations in the PSTN? If so, is it available anywhere right
> now?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-15 15:20)
>
>
> Let me start with I think we're largely on the same page here.
>
> The transition I see happening next is that the consumer traffic largely
> moves to IPv6 with no CG-NAT.  That is, if you're at home or on your phone
> watching video or doing social media or using whatever app is all the rage
> it's going to be over IPv6.
>
> My point was largely that I believe that at some point the big consumer
> (not business) focused companies are going to realize they can use market
> forces to encourage the remaining IPv4-only eyeball networks to transition
> to support IPv6 connections from their customers.  I don't know if the
> timeframe is next year or 20 years from now,  but I do know the tech
> companies are very good at looking at the costs of maintaining backwards
> compatibility with old tech and figuring out ways to shed those costs when
> they no longer make sense.  If they can utilize various forms of pressure
> to make this happen quicker, I fully expect them to do so.
>
> Inside a business network,  or even at home,  it wouldn't surprise me if
> we're both long gone before IPv4 is eradicated.   I know there is going to
> be a lot of IPv4 in my network for years to come just because of product
> lifecycles.
>
> As far as "CG-NAT-like" technologies go (meaning NAT in a provider's
> network), they're unfortunately going to be with us for a long time since
> customers seem to want to be able to reach everything regardless of the
> IPv4 or IPv6 status of the customer or endpoint.   I also expect that most
> service providers with business customers are going to be carrying both
> IPv4 and IPv6 for a long time, not to mention doing a fair bit of
> translation in both directions.
>
> I won't go deeply into the whole IPv4 vs IPv6 discussion for a business
> customer's "public address" because the topic is far too nuanced for an
> email to cover them accurately.   Suffice it to say that I don't disagree
> that business today largely wants IPv4, but some seem to be becoming aware
> of what IPv6 can do and are looking to have both options available to them,
> at least outside the firewall.
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 2:04 AM Brett O'Hara <brett () fj com au> wrote:
>
> > Ok you've triggered me on your point 2.  I'll address the elephant in the
> > room.
> >
> > IPv4 is never ever going away.
> >
> > Right now consumer services are mostly (mobile, wireless, landline, wide
> > generalization) are IPv6 capable.  Most consumer applications are ipv6
> > capable, Google, Facebook, etc.There is light at the very end of the tunnel
> > that suggests that one day we won't have to deploy CGNAT444 for our
> > consumers to get to content, we may only have to do NAT64 for them to get
> > to the remaining Ipv4 Internet.  We're still working hard on removing our
> > reliance on genuine ipv4 ranges to satisfy our customer needs, It's still a
> > long way off, but it's coming.
> >
> > Here's the current problem.  Enterprise doesn't need ipv6 or want ipv6.
> > You might be able to get away with giving CGNAT to your consumers, but your
> > enterprise customer will not accept this. How will they terminate their
> > remote users?  How will they do B2B with out inbound NAT?  Yes, there are
> > solutions, but if you don't need to, why?  They pay good money, why can't
> > they have real ipv4?  All their internal networks are IPv4 rfc1918.  They
> > are happy with NAT.  Their application service providers are ipv4
> > only. Looking at the services I access for work things like SAP,
> > SerivceNow, Office386, Sharepoint, Okta, Dayforce, Xero, and I'm sure many
> > more, none can not be accessed on ipv6 alone..  Their internal network
> > lifecycle is 10+ years.  They have no interest in trying new things or
> > making new technology work without a solid financial reason and there is
> > none for them implementing ipv6.   And guess where all the IP addresses
> > we're getting back from our consumers are going?  Straight to our good
> > margin enterprise customers and their application service providers.
> > Consumer CGNAT isn't solving problems, it's creating more.
> >
> > The end of IPv4 isn't nigh, it's just privileged only.
> >
> > PS When you solve that problem in 50 years time, I'll be one of those old
> > fogey's keeping an IPv4 service alive as an example of "the old Internet"
> > for those young whippersnappers to be amazed by.
> >
> > Regards,
> >    Brett
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_7461260763569918794_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>