Sorry, but this is NOT a significant use case, and I wouldn’t buy service from any Internet provider who doesn’t support BGP.
But frankly you could implement this exact same solution with IPv6 without BGP anyway. Shane > On Jun 16, 2026, at 5:21 PM, Arie Vayner via NANOG <[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/BZ6LKHSDLZ3WOR4GW2B544OKLSHFBIIG/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HZLJOUK3CNBHHHS2KLRVNETDA3U7DNCZ/
