On 2019-11-25 1:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman <dmi...@interhost.net> wrote:
 I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to
v6.
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is
mostly happening today with CGN.
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for
new
organizations deploying dual-stack
Right, which is why we started warning folks about this issue 10+ years
ago, when IPv4 was still plentiful and cheap.
But even content networks have NAT options, and while most of them are
not pretty, the options become more limited every day that passes.
I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
Doug
