IMHO: NPTv6 (network prefix translation) is much better.
Anyone could use ULA (/48 from fd00::/8) on site and translate it to PA
addresses from any number of carriers.
Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Sparkes via NANOG <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 12:56
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>; Gary
> Sparkes <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
>
> Things I precisely advise my clients that we will not support.
>
> There is no reason to support or promote PAT. (My code breaks with it, since I
> removed PAT support)
>
> Except if you want to live in V4 land.
>
> At this point, we are happy to turn off V4. (For machining etc)
>
> Gary Sparkes
> IT Integration and Consulting Services
> Kisara Development
> O: +1 (646) 506-3097
> C: +1 (646) 943-0977
> [email protected]
> Out of Office: None
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 4:00 AM
> To: Gary Sparkes <[email protected]>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
>
> Well, Yeah, I might look "insane" to other people because I still follow UNIX
> philosophy and KISS. I also want flexibility.
>
> If you do not want PAT, then go ahead, use NAT or route public IPs directly.
> What I care is to have choice how to run my networks.
>
> When NAT first appeard, it was like wow! I can now share my expensive
> internet connection with neighbors. Then, ISPs started to do CGNAT and so we
> broke e2e, and so its cursed now. But CGNAT should never ever appear..
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
>
> From: Gary Sparkes <[email protected]>
> To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 07:28:12 +0000
>
>
>
> With (good) IPv6 implementation, I would still use PAT to multihome.
> Thats how single individuals should do, no need to waste IPs.
> There are ready to use routers that support this setup. I never used one but I
> suspect they works okey, any comments?
>
> PAT if you can avoid it? Are you sure you're sane?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: borg--- via NANOG <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 2:45 AM
> To: Brian Knight via NANOG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
>
> Are you trolling now, right? Because I cant imagine the havoc this would
> create on DFZ.
>
> Its already mess, due to 32bit ASNs. Spammers and abusers love those.
> They buy 32bit, lend some /24 space, announce, do whatever they want and
> then just go away and move to new ranges.
>
> Now imagine every person and their dog running BGP?
>
> Im multihomed (on IPv4 for obvious reasons) and I do NOT need bgp.
> Why should I? This stuff is needed to tie ISPs together, not users.
> And NAT works great here. I have 2 defaults, some policy routing to direct
> given traffic where I need and 2 VPN connections.
> I do NOT do LB because I care more about RTT that raw bandwidth, so setup is
> a bit simpler.
>
> With (good) IPv6 implementation, I would still use PAT to multihome.
> Thats how single individuals should do, no need to waste IPs.
> There are ready to use routers that support this setup. I never used one but I
> suspect they works okey, any comments?
>
> As for SMB multihome, they should use NAT 1:1 (stateless) to translate
> RFC1918 -> Internet. In case of IPv6, address space is big, so they can grab
> big
> enough junks of address space from every ISP they multihome and arrange
> correct NAT rules + FW to do so. No need for ASN, no need for BGP and all that
> stuff.. Simple and elegant.
>
> The problem is that current IPv6 is fucked up overengineered crap.
> They tought about IoT and other nonse, instead to deliver simple protocol w/
> larger address space.
>
> I would like that someone would just get new protocol to migrate to IPv4.
> Unfortunately, it wont happen I think, IPv6 is too much deployed. Too much
> money was poured to it...
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
>
> From: Brian Knight via NANOG <[email protected]>
> To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brian Knight <[email protected]>
> Subject: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 22:22:55 -0500
>
> Is there any current effort underway to make BGP more accessible, user-
> friendly, or "plug and play?" Anything that might address some of the more
> technically demanding aspects of multihoming?
>
> Quick Google says no, but maybe someone has more awareness.
>
> I'm pipe-dreaming BGP multihoming becoming as simple as connecting two
> Internet links to a CPE, with no reduction in MTU. No SD-WAN, no tunnels, no
> NAT. Works over any kind of link: 5G, wifi, GPON, cable, fiber, carrier
> pigeon.
>
> CPE vendors might set up web pages that request IPs and an ASN for you. Sets
> up ROAs, IRR, and the CPE, start to finish.
>
> Maybe there's a new protocol where the carrier auto-generates a BGP
> multihoming token and sends it to the user in the order docs. User sets the
> token on the CPE interface facing that provider. Successful negotiation lets
> the
> customer announce their prefix and ASN. CPE and carrier manage it all, no
> network staff needed.
>
> -Brian
>
>
> On 2026-06-21 19:29, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG wrote:
> > Sure, have every hotdog cart run BGP, pretty soon we'll need 64 bit AS
> > numbers :)
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:29PM Mike Hammett via NANOG <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Mike Hammett
> > > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > >
> > > Midwest Internet Exchange
> > >
> > > The Brothers WISP
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7AMX6Y
> N4MRTN7UQ5CQFNYI3KJCKKFJMZ/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MLCNLR
> SVPV27OAWXJHBQ22W5GPYL2DR7/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NXC5CG
> 3WDJYWHCTUPPC64HIQFCJCS2SK/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5KMDES3VPOWSJ7345A3XX6KDT2EHNP2W/
