I’ve not experienced this with PSN and NAT444. I have a LOT of customers doing it without issue. Maybee it’s that the customer has native IPv6 and solves for the problem that way, but then this just becomes make sure IPv6 is provided and it solves for the corner case.
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:13 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > It was a way to say. > > Because you use IPv4 pools in the CGN. Then when detected by some services > such as PSN, they are black-listed. You use other pools, they become black > listed again, and so on. > > This is not the case with NAT64/464XLAT. > > So yeah, it works but the cost of purchasing CGN is actually becoming higher > and you will need sooner or later, to buy more IPv4 addresses once all them > are black-listed. > > I've not heard about anyone that has been able to convince Sony to clean > their addresses from the PSN CGN black-list. > > > > El 26/8/20 9:07, "Mark Andrews" <ma...@isc.org> escribió: > > How doesn’t it work? As long as IPv6 is *on* NAT444 + dual stack has the > same properties (or better, less PMTUD issues) as turning on 464XLAT in the > CPE. Traffic shifts to IPv6 due to hosts preferring IPv6. You can still > disable sending RA’s in either scenario. > > Mark > >> On 26 Aug 2020, at 16:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> >> wrote: >> >> No, this doesn't work >> >> The point your're missing (when I talked before about putting all the costs >> to make a good calculation of each case and then replacing CPEs become >> actually cheaper) is that you need more IPv4 addresses in CGN than in NAT64 >> and further to that, in CGN, your IPv4 pools sooner or later become blocked >> by PSN (unless you don't have gammers among your customers). >> >> El 25/8/20 22:42, "NANOG en nombre de Brian Johnson" >> <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel...@nanog.org en nombre de >> brian.john...@netgeek.us> escribió: >> >> I usually solve this problem by designing for NAT444 and dual-stack. This >> solves both problems and allows for users to migrate as they are able/need >> to. If you try and force the change, you will loose users. >> >> >>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 3:15 PM, Brandon Martin <lists.na...@monmotha.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 8/25/20 3:38 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: >>>> This is very common in many countries and not related to IPv6, but because >>>> many operators have special configs or features in the CPEs they provide. >>> >>> I really, really hate to force users to use my network edge router (I >>> provide the ONT, though, and I provide an edge router that works and most >>> users do take it), but it can be tough to ensure users have something that >>> supports all the right modern features and can be configured via standard >>> means. >>> >>> It would be nice if the consumer router industry could get its collective >>> act together and at least come up with some easy-ish to understand feature >>> support table that customers can match up with their service provider's >>> list of needs. The status quo of a list of devices that work right (which >>> is of course often staggeringly short if you're doing any of these modern >>> transition mechanisms) that needs constant updating and may not be easily >>> available is not ideal. >>> >>> Heck just having a real, complete list of supported features on the model >>> support page on their website would be an improvement... >>> -- >>> Brandon Martin >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.theipv6company.com >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the >> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, >> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if >> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be >> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be >> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of >> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly >> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the >> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > >
