Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Christian de Larrinaga via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---
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  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 ---

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Keith Mitchell]

On 7/7/23 12:34, Colin Johnston wrote:

As as example ipv6 between bt customers can work.


Except for some reason their consumer IPv6 addresses are dynamic, and 
refresh/change frequently :( So not so much for consumer<->consumer.


Keith

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Steve Karmeinsky]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 09:22:46AM -0700 or thereabouts, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 09:16, Paul Mansfield  
> wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.

2G is still in use as so much old stuff still uses it for remote
connectivity, 3G is being shut off.

Steve

-- 
NetTek Ltd  UK mob +44 7775 755503
UK +44 20 3432 3735  /  US +1 (650) 423 1390
social id stevekennedyuk
Euro Tech News Blog http://eurotechnews.net

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Peter Gradwell]

> 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

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Colin Johnston]

Sky set top box’s only do ipv4 :(
Samsung smarttv only do ipv4 :(
Dyson fan only do ipv4 :(

However TomH is doing his best to make better ipv6 in uk.   As as example ipv6 
between bt customers can work.

Colin

Sent from my iPod

> On 7 Jul 2023, at 17:24, Leo Vegoda  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 09:16, Paul Mansfield  
> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This is because they have much more control of the client devices. A
> huge proportion of users get their phones from their network operator
> or an MVNO with aligned interests.
> 
> So, if a network wants to shut off an older protocol they can directly
> influence the number of devices using it and minimise the negative
> consumer backlash. A consumer ISP cannot control the light bulbs,
> laptops, or games consoles subscribers use.
> 
>> I think the key part is educating consumers to stop buying  that
>> hasn't got a "IPv6 Compatible" label on it. That begs the question,
>> who would be the right industry bodies to provide testing suites and
>> services for this certification and lab services?
> 
> The IPv6 Forum did this for ages. But consumers don't care. They buy
> based on functionality and price, not protocol politics.
> 

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Leo Vegoda]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 09:16, Paul Mansfield  wrote:

[...]

> 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.

This is because they have much more control of the client devices. A
huge proportion of users get their phones from their network operator
or an MVNO with aligned interests.

So, if a network wants to shut off an older protocol they can directly
influence the number of devices using it and minimise the negative
consumer backlash. A consumer ISP cannot control the light bulbs,
laptops, or games consoles subscribers use.

> I think the key part is educating consumers to stop buying  that
> hasn't got a "IPv6 Compatible" label on it. That begs the question,
> who would be the right industry bodies to provide testing suites and
> services for this certification and lab services?

The IPv6 Forum did this for ages. But consumers don't care. They buy
based on functionality and price, not protocol politics.

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Brian Candler]

On 07/07/2023 17:14, Paul Mansfield wrote:

I think the key part is educating consumers to stop buying  that
hasn't got a "IPv6 Compatible" label on it.


I disagree. I don't think you can blame consumers for:

- Many ISPs not providing IPv6

- Almost all content providers not serving over IPv6

And frankly, consumers don't care. They buy it, they plug it in, it 
works. That's all they want - and it's not them who are holding back the 
deployment of v6.

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Paul Mansfield]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 12:52, Brian Candler  wrote:
...
> Until that changes, CGN will continue to be heavily used (which is what
> started this thread).

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.

I think the key part is educating consumers to stop buying  that
hasn't got a "IPv6 Compatible" label on it. That begs the question,
who would be the right industry bodies to provide testing suites and
services for this certification and lab services?

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Tim Bray via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---


On 07/07/2023 12:49, Brian Candler wrote:
The bigger problem I see is the complete unwillingness of the majority 
of content providers to make their content accessible over v6, even 
though in some cases it's only a few clicks for them to do it.  They 
*could* do it, but they don't. 



And an unwillingness from content providers to allow ICMP on IPv6.

(one of the cloud did (maybe still does) block ICMP on IPv6 by 
default.   Thus people who try to do the right thing and add IPv6 and 
 records just get bitten in the bum from complaints from people when 
it doesn't work on IPv6 on mobile phones, tunnels ... )



Tim


--- End Message ---

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Tim Bray via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---


On 05/07/2023 16:11, Paul Bone wrote:
Particularly interested in scalable solutions from a few hundred 
subscribers up to tens of thousands – but I suspect that may well 
involve hardware upgrades to do cost effectively.

(more thoughts)

For just IPv4:

It is just an IPtables rule on whatever terminates sessions (PPP or 
vlans or whatever) from your customers?   with -s 100.64.0.0/10  ???   
Thus you don't end up with 1 massive thing that can fail, and has a very 
similar number of single points of failure to actually providing 
connectivity?  Presuming enough customers sessions per box to reasonably 
average it out.   Also you will have to be doing some filtering at this 
point for to makesure the customer only using IPs they are meant to (BCP38)


And you aren't going to jump to zillions of customers on CGnat on day 
1.   You will just start dishing out a 100.64.0.0/10 to new customers? 
So you can see how the load works out and if necessary add more boxes?


Because if you have $one_massive_blob CG_nat box then you've got to have 
all kind of clever (bodge) routing to get to it, and back.  And a state 
based failover?  And 1 massive point of failure.


Tim


--- End Message ---

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Per Bilse via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---
 Hummm, this looks really weird on my side.  Oh, for the days of plain text 
email.Here's the link I was referring to, better luck this time: 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/1996-November/001182.html

On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 12:57:46 BST, Per Bilse  
wrote:> Exactly.  I still don't want to be the party pooper, but here's what I 
said more than 25 years ago:
> proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure lir-wg — RIPE Network 
> Coordination Centre


--- End Message ---

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Per Bilse via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---
 On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 11:41:32 BST, Etienne Victor Depasquale 
 wrote:
> My research suggests, and I wouldn't mind being rubbished,> that as long as 
> CSPs can continue to meet demands with a technology, > then the cost of 
> investment in newer technology > is a significant impediment to its adoption.
Exactly.  I still don't want to be the party pooper, but here's what I said 
more than 25 years ago:
proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure lir-wg — RIPE Network 
Coordination Centre


| 
| 
|  | 
proposal for RIPE's IPv6-address space structure lir-wg — RIPE Network C...


 |

 |

 |


It's a universal truth, path of least cost (just see what happens with routing 
if you mess with that).  However bizarre CGNAT may seem, it's a hard sell that 
people should pay more for their Internet so that their traffic can travel by 
way of a better protocol; especially if the introduction of that better 
protocol is guaranteed to cause disruption and upheaval.  And TBH I think it's 
a bit dangerous if the use of particular protocols was to be dictated for 
reasons of some perceived superiority (be that technical, scientific, 
political, imaginary, or whatever).   Some 30 years ago the use of OSI 
protocols was effectively a political demand in certain environments; scary, 
very scary.

Best,
  -- Per
  --- End Message ---

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Brian Candler]

On 07/07/2023 12:00, uknof-requ...@lists.uknof.org.uk wrote:

--- this is what I wrote ---

Here's a thought.
Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
consumers, who can't implement their own solution.


Here's a brief but interesting read with some real-world testing of 
IPv6-mostly networks:


https://labs.ripe.net/author/ondrej_caletka_1/deploying-ipv6-mostly-access-networks/

It's encouraging that some OSes have built-in CLATs, and hence will 
function with NAT64 even in the absence of DNS64. However, Windows and 
Linux lag behind macOS and iOS/Android in this area.


There's also lots of legacy IoT around. Try telling a customer that 
their home heating or lighting or security camera will no longer work on 
your Internet service, because "we only do IPv6".


Therefore I think you're stuck with dual-stack on the LAN side for some 
time yet, in conjunction with a CLAT on the CPE.  I don't see that it 
causes any harm though - and if over time it becomes less and less used, 
then that's fine too.


The bigger problem I see is the complete unwillingness of the majority 
of content providers to make their content accessible over v6, even 
though in some cases it's only a few clicks for them to do it.  They 
*could* do it, but they don't.


A certain well-known broadcasting organization comes to mind - one which 
has been regarded as a technical leader for the last 100 years.


Until that changes, CGN will continue to be heavily used (which is what 
started this thread).

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Etienne Victor Depasquale]

I rarely post here but the observation:
>
> we seem no closer to IPv4 being left behind like a relic of the stone
> age
>
draws me in.

My research suggests, and I wouldn't mind being rubbished,
that as long as CSPs can continue to meet demands with a technology,
then the cost of investment in newer technology
is a significant impediment to its adoption.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 at 12:33, Paul Mansfield 
wrote:

> I'm sad that three years after this thought exercise:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk/msg06597.html
>
> we seem no closer to IPv4 being left behind like a relic of the stone
> age. And with FTTP being rolled out across the country at a reasonable
> pace, I would hope that the CPEs will have enough performance for IPv6
> given they need to handle up to gigabit performance?
>
> --- this is what I wrote ---
>
> Here's a thought.
> Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
> connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
> support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
> can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
> consumers, who can't implement their own solution.
>
> I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
> more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
> deadline nothing ever finishes!
>
>
> * the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and
> Sky.
>
> I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
> somewhat silent on this ;-)
>
>

-- 



Etienne-Victor Depasquale | Assistant Lecturer


Faculty of ICT
Department of Communication and Computer Engineering
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

 [image:
https://www.um.edu.mt/n/s/twitter] 
  

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Paul Mansfield]

I'm sad that three years after this thought exercise:
https://www.mail-archive.com/uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk/msg06597.html

we seem no closer to IPv4 being left behind like a relic of the stone
age. And with FTTP being rolled out across the country at a reasonable
pace, I would hope that the CPEs will have enough performance for IPv6
given they need to handle up to gigabit performance?

--- this is what I wrote ---

Here's a thought.
Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
support IPv6 on the WAN and the LAN side, with no IPv4 on either. ISPs
can then offer a DNS64/NAT64 service for customers, particularly
consumers, who can't implement their own solution.

I think that allowing the current situation to drag out simply causes
more pain in the long run, and we all know that when there's no real
deadline nothing ever finishes!


* the LINX, LONAP, MANAP etc, UKNOF and the biggest ISPs such as BT and Sky.

I can't include Virgin, Talktalk and PlusNet since they seem to be
somewhat silent on this ;-)

Re: [uknof] CGNAT Solutions

[Tim Bray via uknof]

--- Begin Message ---


On 05/07/2023 16:11, Paul Bone wrote:


I have used several different vendors with varying success, but just 
wondering what people are using for CGNAT solutions and how many 
subscribers?




I've solved 'network funnies' a few times in small companies by making 
sure IPv6 is working.  You'd be surprised how many times 'x doesn't 
work' has been purely caused by the 'consumer' router running out of go 
at a few thousand sessions.


And I was surprised just how many sessions your corporate PC user just 
has running all the time.   And quadruple zillion this is you have loads 
of people watching TV.  Or have a voip call centre.


So in the sceneiro where somebody pops in with (say) a PBX to test which 
boots up and network (and port) scans a few thousand IPs to try and 
discover voip phones to configure on the network, which burns IPv4 ports 
in the nat.   Well, because facebook and google still work, the 
'internet' isn't down.



I'm also just trying to work out in my head also whether you could make 
something 464xlat  style which avoids double nat where you own the CPE.


Tim
--- End Message ---