nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:11:42 -0800
On 3/9/22 2:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IPv4 doesn't require NAT.But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the complaints about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead of open. These complaints are super rare.
CGNat -- which is the alternative -- creates a double NAT. I poked around and it seems that affects quite a few games.
Mike
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote: On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6. Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.Do customers ever complain about double NAT's? MikeOn Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote: On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs. I completely agree. I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning, repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6. But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse for not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4. > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering symmetrical > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who > even knew what it was. I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider. At least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know that it's on their future list without even being in planing / testing phase. > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans for it. ....-- Grant. . . .unix || die
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)), (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Joe Greco (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Saku Ytti (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Ca By (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)) Tom Beecher (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jay Hennigan (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 09)
- RE: V6 still not supported Tony Wicks (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tim Howe (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Andy Ringsmuth (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Jay Hennigan (Mar 09)
- Re: V6 still not supported Tom Hill (Mar 09)
- RE: V6 still not supported netElastic Systems (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Josh Luthman (Mar 10)
- Re: V6 still not supported Bryan Fields (Mar 10)