>I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not actually >being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection". > >So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then >"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet >"connection".
Personally, I feel this is just semantics - whether you call it a connection or access, it still does the same thing - gives people access to resources on the internet. And I would also suggest that the vast majority of users (even more so with cloud services becoming more and more prevalent), the actual method used for access can be particularly irrelevant as long as the service is visible to the user. I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going to be running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible, but at this stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business with on-prem solutions. Google are already offering public DNS64 so it should not be that difficult for ISPs to implement IPv6 only services going forwards - particularly (as Paul Mansfield pointed out) many ISPs are already offering dual-stack solutions. Going IPv6 only forces the end users to move to IPv6 which appears to be the biggest hurdle to overcome. And whilst some on here seem to think that ridiculing peoples opinions and suggestions is acceptable, I think that Paul (Mansfield) has made a valid suggestion that deserves to be discussed in an adult manner. On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:09, Christian <[email protected]> wrote: > Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note) > have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to > initiate and respond to service requests (act as host/p2p) as of today. > Would we be able to buy IPv4 Internet access today ? > > I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not actually > being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection". > > So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then > "Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet > "connection". > > That might also help drive IPv6 as it is by far the cheapest and > simplest way to provide Internet access rather than just connection. > > There are of course various stools between those armchair definitions > but the point is - Industry and users should drive towards IPv6 > everywhere. Internet Access should be a clear offer in the market where > you actually are an Internaut not mediated by CGNATs and goodness knows > what else. Anything less connected than Access should be distinctly > defined so the market understands the offerings and can make like for > like comparisons. > > It also might help drive a distinction away from the lowest common > commodity denominator pricing model we see. > > .0001c > > > Christian > > > > > On 19/05/2020 11:09, Paul Mansfield wrote: > > Here's a thought. > > Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet > > connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must > > support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs > > can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly > > consumers, who can't implement their own solution. > > > > I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes > > more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real > > deadline nothing ever finishes! > > > > > > * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and > Sky. > > > > I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be > > somewhat silent on this ;-) > > > > -- Paul Bone Network Consultant PMB Technology
