[173636] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carrier Grade NAT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 30 00:54:33 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVYrdOtJgJdccOHKpKLGzXPf48R7gDBAJwhBj=wYo9WOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:52:50 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> As an ISP customer, would you really accept not
>> being supplied a globally unique address? Really?
>=20
> Hi Owen,
>=20
> I wouldn't, but outside of the folks I know in this forum, few would
> notice or care. So long as the ISP has an alternative available for
> those who do care (such as an existing static IP request mechanism)
> CGNs are low-risk from a customer-acceptance position.
>=20
Sure, but I didn=92t ask the question of the general public=85 I asked =
it of the people on this list.
I suspect most of the membership of this list would opt out of CGN one =
way or another.
In my case, my provider is IPv6 capable and I=92d simply move my tunnels =
from IPv4 to IPv6 rather than subject myself to CGN if necessary.
Owen
