> > Many ISP circuits do not support BGP
LOL On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 3:51 PM Arie Vayner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > There is also a significant set of use cases that currently work better, > or at least more easily, with NAT. > > The most common example is small branch sites with dual ISP uplinks. There > are a vast number of these sites deployed using two small provider-assigned > (PA) NAT pools. This setup is widely understood, simple to implement, and > reliable. > > Moving these sites to IPv6 via BGP is often not feasible. Many ISP > circuits do not support BGP, and the teams operating these sites lack the > time to navigate that complexity. Furthermore, other IPv6 dual-homing > options often don't align with enterprise requirements or expected > complexity (or really simplicity) levels. > > In my view, this is a core reason why IPv6 adoption remains low in the > enterprise space: it requires fundamental paradigm shifts rather than a > simple protocol update. > > Thanks, > Arie > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 8:10 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different protocol? >> > Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice, no. >> > IPv4 still works. >> >> >> There are also plenty of well established things that NAT causes problems >> for, along with less than desirable protocol and standardization choices >> that have been made because of the existence of NAT. >> >> We've gotten really good at engineering ways to disguise these issues so >> users don't notice them. On one had that's good because user/application >> experiences are better, on the other hand it sucks because people think a >> non-visible problem isn't a problem anymore. >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 10:53 AM Brian Knight via NANOG < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 2026-06-16 01:33, Saku Ytti via NANOG wrote: >> > > Does anyone feel responsibility for the dual stack mess we've created? >> > > It wasn't here when we found the Internet, and we're going to leave it >> > > here after we leave, does not really jive with the whole leave >> > > campground cleaner than found it ethos. >> > >> > It was the most comprehensive solution for the NAT problem. But NAT >> > became the accepted way we connect to the Internet. >> > >> > World + dog knows how to connect to it, troubleshoot it, look at NAT >> > tables on their edge firewall or router. >> > >> > Is NAT still such a severe problem that we needed a different protocol? >> > Ask 1000 NANOG engineers, get 1000 different answers. In practice, no. >> > IPv4 still works. >> > >> > Economics are a slightly different story, but so far, IPv4 space isn't >> > prohibitively expensive. >> > >> > -Brian >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NANOG mailing list >> > >> > >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QEOMV5GN4WLNYOH7QZWYP5E26ZJ5AO57/ >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ABXC2CERUCF64YKCK5YXOJTLPRJSTPBV/ > > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/PNKKS2FBWMXJAQSJIJZGWREUOK4O4DN5/
