Re: Carrier Grade NAT

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <20140729225352.GO7836 () hezmatt org>, Matt Palmer writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> > 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable
> > thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless
> > people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's
> > internet access)
>
> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so
> that those who want to use it can do so?  To my way of thinking, CGNAT is
> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the
> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*.

Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as
the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE.  That's a lot less logging you
need to do from day 1.

> > 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just
> > works.
>
> More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of
> whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT.  People put up
> with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their
> service provider.

Like modems that introduce 2 second queuing delays the moment you
have a upstream transfer like a icloud backup.  Buffer @!#$!@#$!
bloat!

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org