nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Jose Luis Rodriguez <jlrodriguez () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:11:48 -0500
Worse yet, this ship sailed anyway even farther with a ton of devices using private/dynamic MAC addresses ... FWIW, large-ish ISP here, originally an ipv4-only shop. A few years back we overhauled everything and naively tried to go all ipv6, since we owned the data/voice terminals and set top boxes. DidnĀ“t quite work out that way, and wound up spending gobs of money on CGNAT ... but our most demanding customers really appreciate the reduction in latency they get when using ipv6 and skipping that extra processing layer. As usual, YMMV... jlr On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:35 AM Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote: (snip)
Increasing NAT, IPv4 re-use, IPv6 is likely to push the point away from Network-Address-as-Customer-Identity from being the service provider's responsibility. Joe
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Francis Booth via NANOG (Apr 04)
- Re: V6 still not supported JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Apr 04)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Greco (Apr 04)
- Re: antique CGN complaints, was V6 still not supported John Levine (Apr 04)
- Re: antique CGN complaints, was V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Apr 05)
- Re: V6 still not supported Francis Booth via NANOG (Apr 04)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jared Brown (Apr 05)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Apr 04)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Apr 04)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jared Brown (Apr 05)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Apr 05)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jose Luis Rodriguez (Apr 05)
- Re: V6 still not supported Mark Andrews (Apr 06)