nanog mailing list archives
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc () gmail com> wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application developers.
Correct. The most significant challenges to CGN are legal compliance issues. NAT complicates the process of determining who did what using the public IP at this timestamp. CGN developers have designed some novel solutions to that problem, such as dedicating port ranges to particular interior addresses and logging the range once instead of trying to log every connection. So, don't expect it to be a show stopper for long. On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not different.
CGN breaks the internet, but it doesn't break non-p2p VoIP at all whatsoever.
Also correct. The primary impacts from CGN are folks who want to host a game server, folks running bit torrent and folks who want to use Skype. Skype's not stupid and voip relays are easy so after minor growing pains that'll cease to be an issue too. Make opting out of CGN simple and cheap. The relatively few folks who would be impacted will opt out with no particular animus towards you and you'll recover the IP addresses you had dedicated to the rest. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6, (continued)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Neil J. McRae (Jan 28)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Lee Howard (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Jeff Kell (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Eric Tykwinski (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Constantine A. Murenin (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Brandon Ross (Jan 17)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Seth Mos (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Lee Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Joe Maimon (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Lee Howard (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 William Herrin (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 David Swafford (Jan 18)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Jimmy Hess (Jan 19)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Neil J. McRae (Jan 28)
- Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6 Owen DeLong (Jan 18)