6 ms·
Do any of these incumbents stand to gain financially from IPv4 scarcity?
by tgvaughan 7y ago
Do any of these incumbents stand to gain financially from IPv4 scarcity?
- snuxoll 7y agoYes, Residential ISP's can sell or lease their space to AWS, etc. for example and just start moving their customers over to CGNAT. Why bother upgrading your entire network, planning allocations, etc when you can just NAT everyone for cheap?
- freedomben 7y agoCan confirm this is happening. If you're lucky enough to have a choice in ISP, there are a few that won't CGNAT you. I pay a little extra for this ($10 a month) but it's worth it for me. Ask your ISP if that sounds interesting.
- flatiron 7y agoIs that really a feasible long term solution though? I require port forwarding and also work from home so require my service not get blocked due to some spammer on my block.
- wlesieutre 7y agoI’m sure your ISP would love to sell you a business connection for 3x the price
- wongarsu 7y agoThis honestly sounds like a perfect case for a business connection. Not only does it give you a static IP without NAT, possibly in an address block with other high paying (==reputable) people, it also bumps you up a lot in terms of customer service and service availability. Usually the first two questions in an outage are "how many customers are offline, and are any business connections impacted".
- nybble41 7y agoThat assumes the ISP is willing to run a business connection to a residential address. Not every ISP will, especially if you're just a home user with special requirements and not an actual business.
- freedomben 7y agoPerhaps not, but two years in and still going fine. Maybe once IPv6 is more widely adopted I won't need it anymore.
- Dylan16807 7y agoThat's such a ridiculous overcharge. Even a dollar a month would be well into overkill.
- freedomben 7y agoIt includes a static IP, but yeah I agree it's a bit steep. Other ISPs would make me buy a business line, which would cost a lot more than $10 extra.
- mfro 7y agohave you considered just using IPv6 instead of paying that charge?
- cooljacob204 7y agoI would be very, very upset if my ISP decided to throw me into a NAT. Fingers crossed they don't lol.
- mike_hock 7y agoAs long as you have a public IPv6 address, just use that.
- cbhl 7y agoI feel like I would mind NAT less if they gave all the devices IPv6, similar to how it works on some LTE networks. But IPv6 prefix delegation doesn't always work if you put your own router behind the ISP box...
- thu2111 7y agoI'm behind CGNAT for my home connection :( However, I also have native ipv6 to the home for as many devices as I want. It's easy to forget that carrier NAT is expensive for ISPs as NAT hardware needs a lot of fast RAM.
- wmf 7y agoNAT requires planning and expensive equipment; it's not obviously cheaper than IPv6.
- snuxoll 7y agoYes, but it doesn’t require upgrading all your routing hardware and the planning involved with adapting your physical network design to work with the hierarchical structure of IPv6 (we’ve had TCAM large enough to map every /24 of the v4 space for some time now, you can’t get away with that shit with v6 even if your hardware optimizes TCAM usage for routes up to /64’s). This is why many residential ISPs and business haven’t implemented IPv6 yet (well, the later enjoys the false sense of security NAT provides too).
- commandersaki 7y agoKind of. IPv6 addresses are for the most part worthless. They're only useful to shed load for CGNAT but that's only workable if you can configure the end user devices, hence why it's taken off with carriers.