We are getting closer to dual stacking our subs. In the meantime, adding mams interfaces from a new ms-mpc-128g card, into the existing ams0 interface, thus doubling the cgnat capacity, was as easy as adding a Ethernet link to and ae bundle interface. Aaron
On Jun 19, 2025, at 5:43 PM, Niels Bakker via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
I'll bite:
* Forrest Christian [Fri 20 Jun 2025, 00:06 CEST]:
I don't want to restart the recurring argument, but I'll just put this out there: Why bother adding the cost of supporting a dual-stack network when there is precisely zero cost for me to stick with IPv4? From a cost perspective, if I have to assign everyone an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address to deploy IPv6, why would I bother assigning the IPv6 address?
What if everybody thought that way? Would we ever get to a position where we could even consider turning off IPv4 altogether?
(We must consider eventually turning off IPv4. We've run out twice now, the first time we innovated our way out with CIDR, the second time there's no other option on the table but IPv6. The lack of IPv4 is currently a global drag on non-financial innovation.)
I have plenty of addresses to continue handing out IPv4 addresses directly to customers for at least several years, so there is no benefit to me in adding the overhead of dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4 on a per-customer basis simultaneously.
For now. While your competitors are gaining valuable experience with IPv6. And put some customers behind CGNAT, freeing up IPv4 addresses they can monetise in different ways, like sell or rent out as subnets.
Have fun scaling your CGNAT boxes to all the traffic from the customer base you'll eventually have to put behind them. If you had run dual stack then a lot of traffic wouldn't need to traverse them.
-- Niels. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/VJO36DQ4...