Quote:
Originally Posted by Milambar
Just spoke with a friend of mine who's a networking professional. He basically said that CGN is a "fail shortsighted solution", and that it always ends up costing them a lot more than they'd expect, as they need to reinvest in powerful, hideously expensive routers to hold all the NAT tables, or connections start getting dropped when they get old.
I'm not at his level when it comes to things like that, but I trust him, a lot.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
and he is most certianly right.
|
Yes. Yes he is. However, there's two sides to this - There's using CG-NAT to stave off having to use IPv6 and there's using it to share a limited number if IP addresses so people have some kind of access.
Now what Chrysalis is saying is correct - IPv6 is the ultimate solution and what EVERY ISP in the world should be enabling (And what they should have been enabling a good decade ago). Nobody's going to argue with that, certainly not me.
However, what I'm saying is that IPv4 will not be just "switched off" any time soon as far too many sites and services rely on it today. Let's say for the sake of argument that PlusNet ran out of IPv4 addresses TOMORROW, but also enabled IPv6 for everyone overnight. What would that be like?
Well, those who don't get an IPv4 address are going to be locked out of a solid 95% of the internet. They'll have access via IPv6 but they're otherwise screwed for the majority of sites and services. That's the real issue and it doesn't matter if they have IPv6 or not, so what PlusNet is doing here isn't wrong - they can't get more IPv4 addresses, it's just not going to happen so if they run out, what other options do they have?
Like I said "deploy IPv6!" is not the short-term answer, it needs to be done certainly and it should have been done by now but that still wouldn't help those without it.
Yes, it's going to be expensive but it's the best solution really.