3 ms·
> At that point, just use dual stack, even if it's just CG-NAT. The motivating factor is the ability to turn off IPv4 within your own core network. For a large
by Sesse__ 2y ago
> At that point, just use dual stack, even if it's just CG-NAT.
The motivating factor is the ability to turn off IPv4 within your own core network. For a large-ish ISP, running v6-only to all of your customers and having IPv4 to only a couple of points (your NAT64 gateway) can be attractive, assuming you generally know what you're doing and your CPE can do 464XLAT. This becomes _even_ more attractive when your network is too big for it to reasonably fit within 10.0.0.0/8 (very cell phone companies are in this boat).
For an end user in a home network, there is no practical benefit.
- jeroenhd 2y agoUsing IPv6 on the backend is already something ISPs do in many CG-NAT scenarios. This is exactly what DS-Lite does, though that does require a CG-NAT termination solution (then again, if you're an ISP you probably have a box that supports doing that lying around somewhere anyway). For new networks larger than 10/8 going IPv6 native makes sense I suppose, but for existing networks I'd expect migrations to move towards DS-Lite and similar techniques rather than 464XLAT; it's a less messy solution, and from what I can tell it's also more often present in CPEs.
- Sesse__ 2y agoThe big difference is whether the CLAT part is in the CPE or in the endpoints, right?