
On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <20140729225352.GO7836@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's internet access)
Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*.
Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you need to do from day 1.
That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just works.
More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT. People put up with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their service provider.
Like modems that introduce 2 second queuing delays the moment you have a upstream transfer like a icloud backup. Buffer @!#$!@#$! bloat!
Among other things. 99.99% of customers don’t now how to isolate the fault of such a thing to their ISP or how to properly complain about it in my experience. For the 0.01% who do, 99% of them don’t know how to get past the ISP’s first-line “let’s reboot your modem and when you call back afterwards, you won’t be my problem any more”. Owen