3 ms·
> The business case is that networks are getting better but NAT hardware isn't keeping up. Network improvements are not distributed evenly. Most US broadband u
by citrin_ru 2y ago
> The business case is that networks are getting better but NAT hardware isn't keeping up.
Network improvements are not distributed evenly. Most US broadband users are still on ADSL or DOCSIS and I would guess most use the cheapest (and slowest) available plan. With bandwidth per user being stagnant for years they don't need to upgrade CGNAT hardware (if they use it). Wireless providers grow faster and they are adopting IPv6.
But there is another side - server operators have much less reasons to adopt IPv6 than wireless/broadband ISP. Many high traffic sites are IPv4 only and I don't think they are loosing money because of this.
- rsynnott 2y ago> Most US broadband users are still on ADSL or DOCSIS ... VDSL (ie up to 100Mbit), surely? I can't imagine there are many ADSL (ie up to, at most, 24Mbit) users left.
- citrin_ru 2y agoYes VDSL likely is more common nowadays but in publicly available stats they are counted together so better to call it xDSL or just DSL. E. g. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-thirteenth-report https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broad... talks about DSL and DLS speeds not that high.
- rsynnott 2y agoOdd that they lump them together; they're related, certainly, but _used_ very differently (in practice, VDSL is nearly always FTTC, ADSL tends to be fibre to the exchange). If an ISP offered me VDSL, well, I wouldn't be thrilled, but it would be usable. If they offered me ADSL I'd be wondering if I'd accidentally stepped back in time a decade or so. Based on the figures above, though, looks like there actually _is_ still a good bit of ADSL in use in the US!