IMHO: NPTv6 (network prefix translation) is much better. Anyone could use ULA (/48 from fd00::/8) on site and translate it to PA addresses from any number of carriers. Ed/
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 12:56 To: borg@uu3.net Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org>; Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
Things I precisely advise my clients that we will not support.
There is no reason to support or promote PAT. (My code breaks with it, since I removed PAT support)
Except if you want to live in V4 land.
At this point, we are happy to turn off V4. (For machining etc)
Gary Sparkes IT Integration and Consulting Services Kisara Development O: +1 (646) 506-3097 C: +1 (646) 943-0977 gary@kisaracorporation.com Out of Office: None
-----Original Message----- From: borg@uu3.net <borg@uu3.net> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 4:00 AM To: Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
Well, Yeah, I might look "insane" to other people because I still follow UNIX philosophy and KISS. I also want flexibility.
If you do not want PAT, then go ahead, use NAT or route public IPs directly. What I care is to have choice how to run my networks.
When NAT first appeard, it was like wow! I can now share my expensive internet connection with neighbors. Then, ISPs started to do CGNAT and so we broke e2e, and so its cursed now. But CGNAT should never ever appear..
---------- Original message ----------
From: Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: "borg@uu3.net" <borg@uu3.net> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:28:12 +0000
With (good) IPv6 implementation, I would still use PAT to multihome. Thats how single individuals should do, no need to waste IPs. There are ready to use routers that support this setup. I never used one but I suspect they works okey, any comments?
PAT if you can avoid it? Are you sure you're sane?
-----Original Message----- From: borg--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 2:45 AM To: Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: borg@uu3.net Subject: Re: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
Are you trolling now, right? Because I cant imagine the havoc this would create on DFZ.
Its already mess, due to 32bit ASNs. Spammers and abusers love those. They buy 32bit, lend some /24 space, announce, do whatever they want and then just go away and move to new ranges.
Now imagine every person and their dog running BGP?
Im multihomed (on IPv4 for obvious reasons) and I do NOT need bgp. Why should I? This stuff is needed to tie ISPs together, not users. And NAT works great here. I have 2 defaults, some policy routing to direct given traffic where I need and 2 VPN connections. I do NOT do LB because I care more about RTT that raw bandwidth, so setup is a bit simpler.
With (good) IPv6 implementation, I would still use PAT to multihome. Thats how single individuals should do, no need to waste IPs. There are ready to use routers that support this setup. I never used one but I suspect they works okey, any comments?
As for SMB multihome, they should use NAT 1:1 (stateless) to translate RFC1918 -> Internet. In case of IPv6, address space is big, so they can grab big enough junks of address space from every ISP they multihome and arrange correct NAT rules + FW to do so. No need for ASN, no need for BGP and all that stuff.. Simple and elegant.
The problem is that current IPv6 is fucked up overengineered crap. They tought about IoT and other nonse, instead to deliver simple protocol w/ larger address space.
I would like that someone would just get new protocol to migrate to IPv4. Unfortunately, it wont happen I think, IPv6 is too much deployed. Too much money was poured to it...
---------- Original message ----------
From: Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Brian Knight <ml@knight-networks.com> Subject: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 22:22:55 -0500
Is there any current effort underway to make BGP more accessible, user- friendly, or "plug and play?" Anything that might address some of the more technically demanding aspects of multihoming?
Quick Google says no, but maybe someone has more awareness.
I'm pipe-dreaming BGP multihoming becoming as simple as connecting two Internet links to a CPE, with no reduction in MTU. No SD-WAN, no tunnels, no NAT. Works over any kind of link: 5G, wifi, GPON, cable, fiber, carrier pigeon.
CPE vendors might set up web pages that request IPs and an ASN for you. Sets up ROAs, IRR, and the CPE, start to finish.
Maybe there's a new protocol where the carrier auto-generates a BGP multihoming token and sends it to the user in the order docs. User sets the token on the CPE interface facing that provider. Successful negotiation lets the customer announce their prefix and ASN. CPE and carrier manage it all, no network staff needed.
-Brian
On 2026-06-21 19:29, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG wrote:
Sure, have every hotdog cart run BGP, pretty soon we'll need 64 bit AS numbers :)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:29PM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/7AMX6Y N4MRTN7UQ5CQFNYI3KJCKKFJMZ/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/MLCNLR SVPV27OAWXJHBQ22W5GPYL2DR7/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NXC5CG 3WDJYWHCTUPPC64HIQFCJCS2SK/