8 ms·
A local ISP told me that they want to get into IPv6 as soon as possible. NATs are getting costly and moving just YouTube traffic to IPv6 would actually help a l
by mordae 4y ago
A local ISP told me that they want to get into IPv6 as soon as possible. NATs are getting costly and moving just YouTube traffic to IPv6 would actually help a lot.
The problem is with end user devices that do not use a stable DUID and when the client hits the reset button, it changes. We are probably going to work around this by responding from the closest hop and taking the MAC into account.
- neilalexander 4y agoWhy should an unstable DUID matter? The prefix won't change.
- fulafel 4y agoWhat besides presenting the same DUID would cause you to get the same prefix again?
- neilalexander 4y agoThe host portion of the address changes. The prefix doesn’t.
- fulafel 4y agoThe prefix delegated to you does change in many consumer ISP setups, like the upthread poster reported and I've seen in many cases in well, I think repeating your assertion doesn't really advance your argument. Are you thinking of a scenario where the ISP customers share a single prefix? This would be contrary to all the estabilished best practices and deployment guidance for IPv6 since it wouldn't let you easily subnet. And may get the ISP in trouble with your RIR since it's just extorting customers for access to v6 addresses.
- Unklejoe 4y agoCould it be based on whatever physical port you’re attached to on the ISP’s network?
- martinald 4y agoWhy are NATs getting costly? Don't quite understand.
- kazen44 4y agobecause maintaining state for GCNAT tables is far more complex then just forwarding packets. routers doing NAT are thus more expensive then those just doing simple forwarding. Also, in some countries ISP's need to map the use of a specific ip address to a specific subscriber for law enforcment purposes. GCNAT is no exception to this and creates a large amount of overhead because the public IPV4 prefix space is shared between multiple customers.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago> because maintaining state for GCNAT tables is far more complex then just forwarding packets. But it’s a solved problem with mature solutions, decades old. Is it really financially expensive?
- kazen44 4y agocompared to rolling out IPv6? definitely, especially on the longer term. For instance, most Core/Edge routers (my experience is mainly with juniper MX series, but i assume the model is roughly the same for other vendors), you need specific licenses or interface card's to do stateful services like NAT. Compared to doing IPv6, which is "just forwarding packets" and doesn't require the hardware to track state in nearly the same manner. Most serious core/edge hardware vendors also do not put IPv6 behind licenses compared to CGNAT and other NAT-like features, because packet based forwarding is the most basic functionality a router should provide. Routers which are able to do less state, also are frequently far less expensive.
- kortilla 4y agoYou’re presenting a false dichotomy. The choice for an ISP today is not “v4 or v6”, it’s either “v4 or v4+v6”. A v6 only connection in the US is unusable.
- tinus_hn 4y agoThat is intentional. Stable identifiers that get transmitted over the internet lead to unavoidable tracking.