Not true, there's plenty of things that content providers may care about that'll be broken under NAT44 and can be resolved by adopting IPv6.
The obvious things being: Port forwarding Dodgy or non-existing ALG in the gateway, breaking things like SIP, FTP etc. Geolocation tracking and/or CDN steering. Access restrictions (Betting sites blocking multiple users behind one IP). These are just some of the issues we have to face with deploying NAT44, and yes they do have work arounds that work with varying success, but ultimately IPv6 uptake helps mitigate these issues for both the eyeballs and content providers. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Brian Candler <b.cand...@pobox.com> wrote: > On 05/09/2014 09:43, Andy Davidson <a...@nosignal.org> wrote: > >> giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity >> to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6 >> > I'd say that giving users native V6 and NAT44 gives the content companies > *no reason whatsoever* to adopt V6, since they know all their content is > reachable via the tried-and-tested V4 path anyway. It's not broken on their > side. > > >
