On 2015-07-02 10:14, Angehrn, Dominik wrote: > Hi David > > I forwarded all 4 e-mails to the project team which forwarded it to > Engineering and they'll analyze it and investigate. > > BTW: we have multiple CGN boxes (carrier grade NAT) and monitor usage so we > can extend capacity if needed.
Sounds like a great presentation to give at SwiNOG with one of the tiles of: "Scaling DS-Lite to millions" "Why we should not have deployed DS-Lite" "Problems we found and where unable to solve with DS-Lite" etc... This as there are LOTS of complaints about getting forced DS-Lite on various German forums about the German edition of Cablecom about overloaded AFTR boxes and lots of problems with Playstation, VPNs and other services that suddenly completely break and leave people flabbergasted as they can't resolve it while before everything just works. Hence, lots of people complaining that IPv6 is the issue, while it is the big NAT that is causing them. Would be great to hear what has been attempted to address this. Also, it would be awesome if the UPC Cablecom website was updated to clearly state which contracts get DS-Lite and which get native IPv4/IPv6. Paying moneyz for Internet over DS-Lite while one is a gamer is not something one will want. Transparency thus will be a good thing. Of course, none of the contracts tell anything about IP, let alone IPv4 or IPv6 thus nobody has a foot to stand on, which is rather annoying when there are no other choices in one's area for getting connectivity. (...something about shared cable access which would be a great thing...) Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
