[162250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Apr 7 16:11:40 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304070925230.23668@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 13:06:54 -0700
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
On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
>=20
>> CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism =
through IPv6
>> At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
>> Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
>=20
> CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in =
the water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).
>=20
True... But... Resources deploying/maintaining all of these keep =
IPv4-limping along technologies are resources taken away from IPv6 =
deployment.
> My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing =
stopping anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle =
IPv4 address exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be =
done at any time.
>=20
Not really...
> Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet =
subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a =
completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for =
IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. =
MAP is also CGN.
>=20
No, it really isn't. Sufficient IPv6 deployment at the content side =
would actually allow the subscriber side to be IPv4 or dual-stack for =
existing customers with new customers receiving IPv6-only. The missing =
piece there is actually the set-top coversion unit for IPv4-only =
devices. (Ideally, a dongle which can be plugged into the back of an =
IPv4-only device with an IPv6-only jack on the other side. Power could =
be done a number of ways, including POE (with optional injector), USB, =
or other.
> I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I =
don't understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?
IPv6 deployment _IS_ the alternative. They are not orthogonal.
Owen
