On 5/16/25 17:30, Tim Burke via NANOG wrote:
Trying to do hacky things with CGNAT to save a buck is, IMHO, inexcusable,
especially when lots of FTTP operators are now overbuilding legacy
ILECs/cablecos with fiber that is typically being promoted as “superior in
every way”.
If customers were willing to pay for it, they'd be more likely to get
it. Unfortunately, getting a customer to pay more than what the
incumbent LEC/MSO charges for legacy DSL/DOCSIS service is tough, and
the only part of the equation that a new greenfield fiber carrier can
compete on is speed since it's effectively unlimited for them.
I've taken to putting residential customers behind statically-mapped
16:1 or 32:1 CGNAT444 (with native, hardware-forwarded IPv6) by default
and then just moving them to 1:1 public space upon request or for any
form of repeated trouble calls that seem like they may be related to NAT
in one way or another. That drastically cuts down the number of
addresses necessary while keeping almost everybody (including customer
support on my end) reasonably happy.
I'm trying very hard to get IPv4aaS-over-IPv6 usable so that I can make
things even simpler and more transparent for my users. Sadly this has
not taken off nearly as quickly as I would have liked aside from 464XLAT
which really doesn't solve the problem I care to solve (in fact, it
arguably makes it worse).
I've also sadly still seen far too often CPEs and public Internet
endpoints neglecting IPv6 to the extent that it performs noticeably
worse than IPv4 even when the observed AS-paths are identical. This
definitely does not help matters as it tends to drive end users to
disable that native IPv6 that I do provide.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/YUCYNO5MK2ZEOJTDX34XXAPJRROYKQK2/
