Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson)]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I don't disagree. You are actually making the exact point I was 
> attempting to make. The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to 
> deploy IPv6, it is caused by it.

Absolutely. That doesn't mean that any individual ISP right now can choose 
to *not* implement CGN and deploy IPv6. That won't solve IPv4 address 
depletion *for that ISP*.

This is an industry-wide failure that no individual part of the industry 
can work around. For most ISPs, deploying some kind of CGN is the only 
rational decision at this time.

We can discuss what could have should have happened earlier, but now we're 
here. Yes, ISPs should deploy IPv6. Everybody should deploy IPv6.

But I still believe that CGN is mostly orthogonal to IPv6 deployment. 
Saying ISPs today are wrong to deploy CGN and that they should deploy IPv6 
(the word "instead" is usually not there, but it still seems to be 
implied), I just don't understand that argument.

Is it just that the ISP in question hasn't announced their IPv6 plans in 
the same announcement that is the problem? So that people believe CGN is 
part of a future-proof strategy?

So if the ISP says "we're going to deploy CGN for select customers during 
2H-2013 due to IPv4 run-out, and at the same time we're planning to start 
rolling out IPv6 for customers who have upgradable equipment", does that 
help? If the ISP has been around for a while, it's still a huge part of 
the customer base that won't be upgradable, and those customers will be 
stuck behind NAT444 until they do something.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se