--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
It would be really nice if someone proposed this topic for a UKNOF
presentation. Hint hint :)
There was an interesting CGNAT session at the last Council annual event - see
the 13.45pm slot at
https://www.ipv6.org.uk/2022/10/13/ipv6-council-annual-meeting-2022/ for slides
and a recording.
Tim
On 10 Jul 2023, at 10:08, Paul Bone <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies here, I didn’t mean to start another IPv6 and which translation
mechanism should be used discussion! Perhaps I should have caveated my original
post.
Was just interested in which vendors/solutions people are currently using for
CGNAT functions (alongside IPv6!) as there are quite a few options out there
ranging from the low cost to the not so low cost – some of which I have already
used, some I haven’t.
Paul Bone
From: Christian de Larrinaga <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Aled Morris
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Brian Candler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Paul
Mansfield <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
Peter Gradwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions
What I said. C
On 8 July 2023 08:25:10 Aled Morris
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There’s no LIR between a major content provider and the Internet, they’re all
LIRs in their own right. Perhaps you meant RIR but in any case there’s no
argument in the RIPE region since IPv6 addresses are free.
Aled
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 23:22, Christian de Larrinaga via uknof
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Users wanting e2e have promoted v6. But The networks (LIRs ) are responsible
for IP addressing for user edge including content services. There's a dotted
line to vendors but they want orders from the ISPs.
ISPs need to keep costs down. So the scale of demand for V6 support in
equipment has to be sufficient to get market traction.
Sigh!.. we are still discussing this 23 years on and nearly a decade after v4
exhaustion.
C
On 7 July 2023 17:36:37 Peter Gradwell
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> yes, a lot needs to change. But we don't seem to
> be any closer.
> Mobile phone networks have managed to obsolete
> 2G and 3G devices, pushing for 4G-only and
> probably one day 5G-only. We've also got Wifi6
> labelling.
As a consumer, the G upgrade gives me something I didn’t have before and I want
to pay for (faster packets in more places).
V6 doesn’t change my consumer experience and it’s completely invisible.
It’s also harder to understand and increases complexity imo. (And alegedly I
have some tiny understanding of the 7 layers of the Ip stack).
Cos it offers no visible benefit, is harder to adopt and requires a cost of
change, it’s understandably not being driven by consumer.
Cheers
Peter
--- End Message ---
