3 ms·

What are users of these ISPs missing out on my not having IPv6? They need to rely on NAT for their devices, but that works fine as far as they know. Their IoT d

What are users of these ISPs missing out on my not having IPv6? They need to rely on NAT for their devices, but that works fine as far as they know. Their IoT devices need to connect to remote servers instead of wait for remote servers to contact them directly, but that won't change how users interact with their devices so they won't care. Maybe this isn't a serious enough crisis and we can just wait til it becomes a real issue for users. When it does, it will probably be incremental rather than catastrophic, so we'll still have time to upgrade networks piecemeal, and with more reason to do so.

throw0101a 4y ago
> What are users of these ISPs missing out on my not having IPv6? They need to rely on NAT for their devices […] This assumes that they can even get an IPv4 address. New ISPs and telcos may not be able to get enough IPv4 addresses to assign each individual connection one. So either (a) the CPE only gets an IPv6 address and they have to use DNS64/NAT64 or 464XLAT to reach the IPv4 Internet, or (b) the CPE gets a shared address space (100.64.0.0/10) IPv4 address and CG-NAT ensues: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT In which case the end-user gets to deal with double-NATing (first with their CPE/home router, and second by the ISP). Case in point someone that is surprised that every customer gets a public IP address and CG-NAT is not done: * https://old.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/uw0qwy/ https://old.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/uw0qwy/