Hi, On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:43:03PM +0000, tincantech via Openvpn-users wrote: > Provided that the ISP does not also charge extra for IPV6.
If the ISP does so, they are stupid.
As an ISP, if my users have IPv6, they can go directly to many of the
traffic-intensive sites (youtube, google, ...) - which directly translates
to (significantly) "less load, less sessions" on the CG-NAT boxes.
Less load on the CG-NAT boxes translates to "less $$ to be paid to the
vendors for larger boxes, and for sufficient public IPv4 addresses for
the NAT pool".
T-Mobile USA realized this like 10+ years ago and went IPv6-only(!) for
their mobile customers - with a NAT64 translation layer, for those sites
that still only provide IPv4. To some extent this was driven by "yes,
IPv6 is the way to go", but to a very large portion by "we do not have
IPv4 addresses, and we do not want to go out and buy legacy stuff for
lots of money if we can future-proof our network right away AND save
money at that".
Did I say that ISPs charging extra for IPv6 are just stupid?
gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users
