[159703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Fri Jan 18 12:48:46 2013
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:48:18 -0500
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD1EEA64.8C16%Lee@asgard.org>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Lee Howard wrote:
> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
> by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
> effect. Also, spending money on CGN seems misguided; if you agree that
> you're going to deploy IPv6 anyway, why spend the money for IPv6 *and
> also* for CGN?
>
>
> Lee
>
Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as
they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Unfortunately, that may have the side effect of undercutting some
portion of v6's value proposition, inversely related to its suckage.
Joe
