3 ms·
It may not reduce the need for IPv4, but it will reduce the need for costly CG-NAT devices and capacity for IPv4 when the streaming can happen over IPv6 which d
by ArchOversight 4y ago
It may not reduce the need for IPv4, but it will reduce the need for costly CG-NAT devices and capacity for IPv4 when the streaming can happen over IPv6 which does not require the costly CG-NAT devices.
- Gigachad 4y agoWonder if ISPs will just let their CG-NAT get overloaded and if you want to send a v4 packet you just have to wait for your time slice on the hardware.
- toast0 4y agoI've seen that. Too many connections, so the idle timeout is now ten seconds. And, as per usual middlebox NAT, no packets sent when closing an idle connection, and no response to packets sent on 'unknown' connections.
- zamadatix 4y agoI may be mistaken on how many people this ISP is serving but for 300K they should have gotten pro serv, licensing, and hardware for ~100 million sessions, some of which now no longer need to go through the NAT64 hardware. Hopefully they didn't buy through the same people that sold them the NAT64 hardware+software without CG-NAT built in though...