Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>]

> DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP is also CGN.

Thankfully, MAP is not CGN. Correctly stated, unlike DS-Lite, MAP doesn't require any CGN that causes the SP network to 
put up with the NAT state. This means that all the subsequent issues of CGN/DS-Lite no longer apply. 

MAP is all about stateless (NAT64 of Encapsulation) and IPv6 enabled access. MAP makes much more sense in any SP 
network having its internet customers do IPv4 address sharing and embrace IPv6.

Cheers,
Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On Apr 7, 2013, at 3:33 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
>
> > CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
> > At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
> > Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
>
> CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or 
> alike).
>
> 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?
>
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se