Because then a large part of the Internet won't work....

---

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tony=wicks.co.nz@nanog.org> on behalf of Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2021, 9:04 am
To: Steve Saner
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: CGNAT

Why not go whole hog and provide IPv4 as a service? That way you are not waiting for your customers to turn up IPv6 to take the load off your NAT box.

Yes, you can do it dual stack but you have waited so long you may as well miss that step along the deployment path.

-- 

Mark Andrews

On 20 Feb 2021, at 01:55, Steve Saner <ssaner@ideatek.com> wrote:



We are starting to look at CGNAT solutions. The primary motivation at the moment is to extend current IPv4 resources, but IPv6 migration is also a factor.

We've been in touch with A10. Just wondering if there are some alternative vendors that anyone would recommend. We'd probably be looking at a solution to support 5k to 15k customers and bandwidth up to around 30-40 gig as a starting point. A solution that is as transparent to user experience as possible is a priority.

Thanks

--

Steve Saner

ideatek HUMAN AT OUR VERY FIBER

This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not, or believe you may not be, the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by return email or by calling 620.543.5026. Then take all steps necessary to permanently delete the email and all attachments from your computer system.