Hi Marco, In general, you are right about NAT, but it is not an argument against my message.
1. if you eliminate NAT44, you need to install NAT64, the last one is 3x more expensive (per user/flow). But IPv6 for Telco would be 90+%, hence, NAT64 would be cheaper than NAT44 before. 2. NAT is not an important factor for business - it coincides with FW. Hence, "for free". I was saying that IPv6 would not be accepted by businesses. 3. My message was not that "IPv4 is enough". The shortage of IPv4 addresses is real. My message was that IPv6 design is so bad (on the subnet level) that businesses would stay on IPv4. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 17:52 To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Artificial Juniper SRX limitations preventing IPv6 deployment (and sales) On 06.11.2025 12:11 Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> wrote: > Tell any financial department that 2% does not matter and see the > reaction. Please tell that the various companies that route IPv6 traffic. All the ISP that don't have enough IPv4 want to have more traffic via IPv6 to save resources in their NAT gateways. This year was a talk at the RIPE conference about that topic. TLDR: IPv6 is cheaper in such situations. The larger header size is simply irrelevant. -- kind regards Marco Send spam to [email protected] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JITMWLSZX724Z4IWL5N37ECQHA3HPL6H/
