nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:15:10 +0200
* Mikael Abrahamsson
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?
Technically I agree with all of the above. However, going for the NAT444 flavour of CGN might well delay or lower the perceived importance of IPv6 deployment within an ISP. The immediate problem is IPv4 service continuity, and if that is to be accomplished without IPv6 being part of it, it's easy to postpone doing anything about IPv6. I went to an interesting presentation from Kabel Deutschland last month, who have deployed DS-Lite to their residential subscribers. One of the messages was that once the decision was made to implement DS-Lite to deal with IPv4 exhaustion, there was no problem getting the necessary support to deploy IPv6 - it was no longer a separate and non-revenue-generating problem, but an essential building block needed for their IPv4 service continuity. (MAP and 464XLAT would yield the same effect, of course.) To answer your earlier question - yes, I'd very much prefer to have DS-Lite over NAT444, because only the former will ensure that I get native IPv6 once my native IPv4 gets taken away. With NAT444, I'm no closer to having IPv6 than I was before NAT444. That said, there are of course some things that may make anything except NAT444 undeployable. Verizon might have old DSLAMs that cannot deal with IPv6, or customer-controlled/owned (layer-3) HGWs. If so, their hands are tied. -- Tore Anderson
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN, (continued)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Livingood, Jason (Apr 09)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Rob Seastrom (Apr 09)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Livingood, Jason (Apr 09)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Constantine A. Murenin (Apr 06)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Julien Goodwin (Apr 06)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Christopher Morrow (Apr 06)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 06)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 06)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Fabien Delmotte (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Tore Anderson (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Owen DeLong (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Oliver Garraux (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Owen DeLong (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Tore Anderson (Apr 07)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Owen DeLong (Apr 08)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Simon Lockhart (Apr 08)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Arturo Servin (Apr 08)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Tore Anderson (Apr 08)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Leo Bicknell (Apr 08)
- Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Julien Goodwin (Apr 06)