On 24/05/2016 11:12, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
That is one of the fundamental problems: deploying IPv6 does*not* in
>the slightest reduce your need for IPv4 addresses!
I would have expected more v6 = less pressure on CGNAT box so can get
away with higher user to real IP ratio
Sure - if you're a carrier who does NAT on behalf of your customers.
That means basically just the mobile networks. They force a load of
stuff through proxies anyway.
For everyone else:
- If you're an edge network, then you're probably happy NATing to a
single IPv4 address already
(Of course, there are some broken networks who try to NAT far too much
onto a single IP, e.g. hotels with 1000 rooms. But their networks are
built with an astounding lack of clue at the best of times)
- If you're a fixed-line ISP, you had better give real IPv4 addresses to
your customers, or you die in the marketplace
In some markets, you might get away with NAT444 as a consumer ISP. But
try telling a business customer they can't accept inbound VPN
connections over IPv4.
