3 ms·
The OP is probably talking about implementation rather than design, which to this day is very fragile and prone to breakage and misconfiguration, at least on co
by colordrops 6y ago
The OP is probably talking about implementation rather than design, which to this day is very fragile and prone to breakage and misconfiguration, at least on consumer grade networks.
- bjt2n3904 6y agoImplementation, design, and adoption. All in all, for the wonderful claims it's supporters make, adoption is the elephant in the room.
- philjohn 6y agoAnd with certain ISP's being done with DS-Lite which is the worst possible solution at the moment. Sure, your core network is now IPV6, but everyone is going through CGNAT for the parts of the internet that are IPV4 only. It's one of the reasons I moved from Virgin Media (Cable in the UK) to Zen (FTTP) ... proper dual stack so I have native IPV4 AND IPV6.
- p1mrx 6y ago> DS-Lite which is the worst possible solution at the moment No, CGNAT-only is the worst solution. > everyone is going through CGNAT for the parts of the internet that are IPV4 only. What choice do they have? There are more humans than IPv4 addresses, so if every ISP were dual-stack, the price would go to infinity. It would be more productive to complain about CGNAT-only ISPs, than those who are actually trying to fix the problem.