3 ms·

There is a cost there though as mentioned in the forum post. The ISP in question is using CGNAT, but they need more IPv4 addresses even with CGNAT to support hi

by slaymaker1907 4y ago

There is a cost there though as mentioned in the forum post. The ISP in question is using CGNAT, but they need more IPv4 addresses even with CGNAT to support higher loads. CGNAT only reduces the number of IPv4 addresses required, it does not eliminate the scaling. However, I do think IPv4 is honestly pretty good for local or even WAN networking for organizations. You're unlikely to ever hit limits in the reserved blocks and it's much easier to read and work with IPv4 addresses. Maybe we need easier configs to block IPv6 except for external addresses?

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
> I do think IPv4 is honestly pretty good for local or even WAN networking for organizations Strong disagree here: I sometimes do work which involves VPNing-in to SMB company on-prem networks from within other SMB’s on-prem networks, so they’re all invariably using 192.168.x.x or 172.16.x.x whuch means they all conflict with each other when you want to use LAN resources at the same time you’re VPN-ing to another network. My hope is that IPv6 will mean point-to-site and site-to-site VPNs will die-off and we’ll be able to connect all hosts directly to other hosts (IPSec Transport Mode) - but then I’m reminded that configuring an IPv6 firewall for IPSec is conceptually much harder than setting up OpenVPN - and SMBs don’t have much in the way of people who even know what IPSec is, ugh.