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 <[email protected]> > 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/[email protected]/message/VJO36DQ4OBQCGXUXCU3D47PDVUMFQYOI/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/53UCPGBDSWIW5YY52QGWR4A7DQDOUHKE/
