On 5 Sep 2014, at 15:31, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
For the applications that work through CGN the difference between CGN and IPV6 is largely zero from a performance point of view even under load. No, applications are getting more port grabby, this is incompatible with NAT at scale. I’ve had things like tiles fail to load on Goog maps at busy times when tethered to a mobile device and IM sessions being lumpy. You could in fact say that I have been frustrated by NAT and would not have been were I to have native v6 through to these services, which does somewhat bring me to the point I made this morning that kicked off the discussion : " On 4 Sep 2014, at 15:17, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Also I see IPV6 frustrating users where its been rolled out before it was ready which is something that's very bad. One could make the same comment about frustrated users because of NAT44, which is now the only way forward for all of the subscribers to service providers which don’t have a v6 plan by now. “ Andy
