3 ms·

(CG)NAT can been a real cost to ISPs, especially smaller ones: > Our [American Indian] tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow supp

(CG)NAT can been a real cost to ISPs, especially smaller ones: > Our [American Indian] tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624

gunian 2y ago
kind of a linguistic tangent do we say american european or american british or is that taboo?
- somanyphotons 2y ago
  colonial american?
- throw0101d 2y ago
  "American Indian" is fairly standard nomenclature: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United...
- 6SixTy 2y ago
  Euro American most likely would be the correct terminology, sort of whatever rolls off the tongue better. A lot of non-Hispanic white Americans are actually not British, but are instead a broad mix of European countries that varies depending on geography (e.g. Louisiana is very French). Even nailing it down to XYZ country in Europe is a bit of a stretch, as the European genepool isn't the most diverse thing in the world.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Typically if you want to indicate that somebody is an immigrant in the US, you put the country of origin in the front. British-American or European-American would be ok I guess. I guess an American-British would be somebody who immigrated to GB from the US in that convention, but actually I’m not sure what convention they use over there. Anyway in this case they aren’t talking about anybody who’s immigrated at all so it is pretty much unrelated.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    The nationality of ancestors is not very relevant to most Europeans, mostly because we're the native people of the continent. People with multiple nationalities or who grew up in a different country than their nationality very often describe themselves in terms of a single nationality, often the place they spent most of their childhood. "I'm Argentinian" "Oh, was it difficult to get a visa to come here?" "Well, I have an Italian passport because of my mother." Americans describing themselves as British-American or whatever seems strange to us, since we can recognize typical British people but aren't seeing any of it in the American.
  - senkora 2y ago
    I’ll add that using the hyphen is a little controversial: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Interesting! I had no idea.
martinald 2y ago
Eh? CGNAT is purely a cost saving measure. I have no idea who would try and run a pure IPv6 network for (i assume given Roku etc) home use and then get mad that some stuff doesn't support IPv4. The 71% is almost certainly because Roku consumes a lot more bandwidth doing video streaming than the other services. Even if Roku did support it I'm sure the users wouldn't be happy that xx% of the web was unreachable.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  CGNAT is cheaper than acquiring additional IPv4 addresses, but it is more expensive than the same traffic going over IPv6.
wmf 2y ago
This sounds like a great sob story but it's more like "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted to cut corners and encountered the inevitable consequences".
- RockRobotRock 2y ago
  Wow, that's pretty extreme. Maybe we can land somewhere in the middle here? If you're trying to do an ISP on a budget, IPv4 makes things harder.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted Or it was people who weren't going to be served by commercial companies tried to help their community as best they could on a shoestring budget, with minimal funding, in a non-profit fashion.
- esseph 2y ago
  Can you please explain why you believe this?
  - gruez 2y ago
    Any network engineer worth their salt knows that ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky, which is why basically nobody does ivp6-only. Even bottom-of-the-barrel VPS providers selling ipv6-only servers for $15/year provides CGNAT for ivp4. An ISP charging presumably an order of magnitude more should be expected to be more competent than that. The fact that they did try to go ipv6-only (ie. "cutting corners") shows that the people involved were blamed were incompetent.
    - orangeboats 2y ago
      >ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky That explains why cellular ISP are progressively adopting 464XLAT, a IPv6-only technology. /s
      - 2y ago
saelthavron 2y ago
The way local ISPs talk IPv6 is the expensive support item and don't bother with it. They both run CGNAT too.
arcza 2y ago
This sounds like incompetence. You can procure IPv4 addresses in days as a monthly rental (go speak to Cogent etc), or even buy outright with little delay. Going rate is currently $34/address at the /24 level and cheaper for larger blocks.
mmerickel 2y ago
It's really fun when your ISP starts using CG-NAT as a security feature in marketing. You ask them for a static IP and they have you sign an agreement that you won't be getting the BENEFITS of their CUSTOMER FIREWALL. Yeah ok, so if that's the language around this then we're just screwed aren't we? And you also can't tell me when you're planning to support IPv6 of course.
- gruez 2y ago
  >they have you sign an agreement that you won't be getting the BENEFITS of their CUSTOMER FIREWALL Sounds like the legal department didn't want them to get sued for "negligence" or whatever when some customer exposes their windows server 2008 installation to the internet and promptly gets hacked.
Nextgrid 2y ago
> (CG)NAT can been a real cost to ISPs, especially smaller ones Which is a perfect incentive for incumbent ISPs to delay and stall IPv6 rollout as much as possible to ruin the day of any would-be competitor.
- gruez 2y ago
  It really isn't. As the parent commenter mentioned, most of the ipv4 traffic comes from non-ISPs, which makes sense given that basically nobody uses p2p given how much of a pain NAT traversal is. Maybe there's a point that ISPs are the last holdouts, we're nowhere close to that yet.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  Although some of the earlier adopters of IPv6 are the biggest ISPs, as their networks are so big that IPv6 actually simplifies their network management. In the US, Comcast was an early adopter and globally the mobile networks have been as well.

gunian 2y ago

kind of a linguistic tangent do we say american european or american british or is that taboo?

somanyphotons 2y ago
colonial american?
throw0101d 2y ago
"American Indian" is fairly standard nomenclature: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United...
6SixTy 2y ago
Euro American most likely would be the correct terminology, sort of whatever rolls off the tongue better. A lot of non-Hispanic white Americans are actually not British, but are instead a broad mix of European countries that varies depending on geography (e.g. Louisiana is very French). Even nailing it down to XYZ country in Europe is a bit of a stretch, as the European genepool isn't the most diverse thing in the world.
bee_rider 2y ago
Typically if you want to indicate that somebody is an immigrant in the US, you put the country of origin in the front. British-American or European-American would be ok I guess. I guess an American-British would be somebody who immigrated to GB from the US in that convention, but actually I’m not sure what convention they use over there. Anyway in this case they aren’t talking about anybody who’s immigrated at all so it is pretty much unrelated.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  The nationality of ancestors is not very relevant to most Europeans, mostly because we're the native people of the continent. People with multiple nationalities or who grew up in a different country than their nationality very often describe themselves in terms of a single nationality, often the place they spent most of their childhood. "I'm Argentinian" "Oh, was it difficult to get a visa to come here?" "Well, I have an Italian passport because of my mother." Americans describing themselves as British-American or whatever seems strange to us, since we can recognize typical British people but aren't seeing any of it in the American.
- senkora 2y ago
  I’ll add that using the hyphen is a little controversial: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Interesting! I had no idea.

martinald 2y ago

Eh? CGNAT is purely a cost saving measure. I have no idea who would try and run a pure IPv6 network for (i assume given Roku etc) home use and then get mad that some stuff doesn't support IPv4. The 71% is almost certainly because Roku consumes a lot more bandwidth doing video streaming than the other services. Even if Roku did support it I'm sure the users wouldn't be happy that xx% of the web was unreachable.

Symbiote 2y ago
CGNAT is cheaper than acquiring additional IPv4 addresses, but it is more expensive than the same traffic going over IPv6.

wmf 2y ago

This sounds like a great sob story but it's more like "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted to cut corners and encountered the inevitable consequences".

RockRobotRock 2y ago
Wow, that's pretty extreme. Maybe we can land somewhere in the middle here? If you're trying to do an ISP on a budget, IPv4 makes things harder.
throw0101a 2y ago
> "people who aren't competent to run an ISP attempted Or it was people who weren't going to be served by commercial companies tried to help their community as best they could on a shoestring budget, with minimal funding, in a non-profit fashion.
esseph 2y ago
Can you please explain why you believe this?
- gruez 2y ago
  Any network engineer worth their salt knows that ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky, which is why basically nobody does ivp6-only. Even bottom-of-the-barrel VPS providers selling ipv6-only servers for $15/year provides CGNAT for ivp4. An ISP charging presumably an order of magnitude more should be expected to be more competent than that. The fact that they did try to go ipv6-only (ie. "cutting corners") shows that the people involved were blamed were incompetent.
  - orangeboats 2y ago
    >ivp6-only connectivity is going to be flaky That explains why cellular ISP are progressively adopting 464XLAT, a IPv6-only technology. /s
    - 2y ago

saelthavron 2y ago

The way local ISPs talk IPv6 is the expensive support item and don't bother with it. They both run CGNAT too.

arcza 2y ago

This sounds like incompetence. You can procure IPv4 addresses in days as a monthly rental (go speak to Cogent etc), or even buy outright with little delay. Going rate is currently $34/address at the /24 level and cheaper for larger blocks.

mmerickel 2y ago

It's really fun when your ISP starts using CG-NAT as a security feature in marketing. You ask them for a static IP and they have you sign an agreement that you won't be getting the BENEFITS of their CUSTOMER FIREWALL. Yeah ok, so if that's the language around this then we're just screwed aren't we? And you also can't tell me when you're planning to support IPv6 of course.

gruez 2y ago
>they have you sign an agreement that you won't be getting the BENEFITS of their CUSTOMER FIREWALL Sounds like the legal department didn't want them to get sued for "negligence" or whatever when some customer exposes their windows server 2008 installation to the internet and promptly gets hacked.

Nextgrid 2y ago

> (CG)NAT can been a real cost to ISPs, especially smaller ones Which is a perfect incentive for incumbent ISPs to delay and stall IPv6 rollout as much as possible to ruin the day of any would-be competitor.

gruez 2y ago
It really isn't. As the parent commenter mentioned, most of the ipv4 traffic comes from non-ISPs, which makes sense given that basically nobody uses p2p given how much of a pain NAT traversal is. Maybe there's a point that ISPs are the last holdouts, we're nowhere close to that yet.
kalleboo 2y ago
Although some of the earlier adopters of IPv6 are the biggest ISPs, as their networks are so big that IPv6 actually simplifies their network management. In the US, Comcast was an early adopter and globally the mobile networks have been as well.