[162237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fabien Delmotte)
Sun Apr 7 03:12:49 2013
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304070839110.23668@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Fabien Delmotte <fdelmotte1@mac.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:24 +0200
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism throug=
h IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
My 2 cents
On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>=20
>> I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6=
would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(=
>=20
> IPv6 deployment is not a short term solution to IPv4 address depletion. Wo=
uld you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite (ie you=
r IPv4 is still CGN:ed, just in a different way)?
>=20
> CGN is here to stay for IPv4. The solution for long term Internet growth i=
s IPv6.
>=20
> --=20
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>=20
