4 ms·

That's fairly normal these days. The combination of ipv6 + cgnat for ipv4 (carried over the v6) is called DS-Lite[0]. ISPs in asian countries have been doing th

by the8472 10y ago

That's fairly normal these days. The combination of ipv6 + cgnat for ipv4 (carried over the v6) is called DS-Lite[0]. ISPs in asian countries have been doing that for years now european and american ISPs have been ramping it up recently too. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333

userbinator 10y ago
ISPs in asian countries have been doing that for years And they usually call it "web access" or something similar, never speaking of an "Internet connection". Which is what it is, a way to access websites and usually not much else.
- clarry 10y ago
  I think we need a mandate for ISPs to make it clear when the product they're offering is not internet connection.
- luchs 10y ago
  Is it really? Apart from the missing port-forwarding, DS-Lite seems to be one of the better solutions to the IPv4 shortage to me. There's only a single NAT at the ISP, the local router tunnels IPv4 packages directly to the AFTR. For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887
  - the8472 10y ago
    > For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Sadly, that's only half correct. Yes, nat traversal usually works to establish connections. But in practice port mappings are not necessarily the same thing as NAT table entries. If your p2p application contacts a lot of endpoints, even from the same source port, this can eventually lead to saturation. At that point you'll get packet drops and ICMP errors. In other words, on some aftr implementations p2p can lead to resource exhaustion, leading to a pretty bad ipv4 experience. > Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. Some already do. The CPE can forward local mappings to the AFTR.

by the8472 10y ago

userbinator 10y ago

ISPs in asian countries have been doing that for years And they usually call it "web access" or something similar, never speaking of an "Internet connection". Which is what it is, a way to access websites and usually not much else.

clarry 10y ago
I think we need a mandate for ISPs to make it clear when the product they're offering is not internet connection.
luchs 10y ago
Is it really? Apart from the missing port-forwarding, DS-Lite seems to be one of the better solutions to the IPv4 shortage to me. There's only a single NAT at the ISP, the local router tunnels IPv4 packages directly to the AFTR. For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887
- the8472 10y ago
  > For peer-to-peer applications, both UDP and TCP hole punching work fine. Sadly, that's only half correct. Yes, nat traversal usually works to establish connections. But in practice port mappings are not necessarily the same thing as NAT table entries. If your p2p application contacts a lot of endpoints, even from the same source port, this can eventually lead to saturation. At that point you'll get packet drops and ICMP errors. In other words, on some aftr implementations p2p can lead to resource exhaustion, leading to a pretty bad ipv4 experience. > Maybe some ISPs will implement the Port Control Protocol [1] at some point, which would allow port forwarding with the DS-Lite NATs. Some already do. The CPE can forward local mappings to the AFTR.