[159737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Swafford)
Fri Jan 18 23:40:05 2013
In-Reply-To: <50F98AE2.9090001@ttec.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:39:51 -0800
From: David Swafford <david@davidswafford.com>
To: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
david.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
