4 ms·

If you are an ISP running dual stack ipv4 with NAT plus ipv6, the more connections happen via ipv6 and the more traffic happens via ipv6, the better, because it

by est31 9mo ago

If you are an ISP running dual stack ipv4 with NAT plus ipv6, the more connections happen via ipv6 and the more traffic happens via ipv6, the better, because it doesn't have to go through the NAT infrastructure which is more expensive, and cost scales with traffic (each packet needs its header to be modified) and number of parallel open connections (each public v4 address gives you only 65k port numbers, plus this mapping needs to be stored in RAM and databases).

compounding_it 9mo ago
NAT accelerated hardware exists almost everywhere now. But yes NAT is a pita overall. CGNAT is even more of a problem.
- djha-skin 9mo ago
  Not really, this is only true for mobile devices.
  - compounding_it 9mo ago
    7621 devices include hardware NAT. And anything Qualcomm in the recent past does. Most home WiFi 5 and above routers can do hardware NAT just fine. Hardware NAT allows for using cheap and old cpus for CPE. ISP hardware is a different story. Some decent routers that can do that which don’t cost a lot. https://www.reddit.com/r/openwrt/comments/1lopamn/current_highest_spec_router_that_supports_openwrt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/openwrt/comments/1lopamn/current_hi...
  - benjiro 9mo ago
    > Not really, this is only true for mobile devices. Tell that to my fixed line provider, with their CGNAT ... And its just about every provider in Germany pulling that crap. O, and dynamic IPv6 pre-fix also, because can't have you run any servers! Yes, plenty of ways to bypass it but when you have ISP's still stuck in 1990's attitude, with dynamic IPv4/IPv6, limited upload (1/3 to 1/5 of your download), etc ...
- est31 9mo ago
  I was mostly thinking about CGNAT instead of NAT around your home network. There is a talk by Dmitriy Melnik at RIPE 91 about the costs for ISPs to not adopt ipv6 vs to adopt ipv6 (relevant stuff starts at 9:55). https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/8YZNF9/ https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/8...

by est31 9mo ago

compounding_it 9mo ago

NAT accelerated hardware exists almost everywhere now. But yes NAT is a pita overall. CGNAT is even more of a problem.

djha-skin 9mo ago
Not really, this is only true for mobile devices.
- compounding_it 9mo ago
  7621 devices include hardware NAT. And anything Qualcomm in the recent past does. Most home WiFi 5 and above routers can do hardware NAT just fine. Hardware NAT allows for using cheap and old cpus for CPE. ISP hardware is a different story. Some decent routers that can do that which don’t cost a lot. https://www.reddit.com/r/openwrt/comments/1lopamn/current_highest_spec_router_that_supports_openwrt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/openwrt/comments/1lopamn/current_hi...
- benjiro 9mo ago
  > Not really, this is only true for mobile devices. Tell that to my fixed line provider, with their CGNAT ... And its just about every provider in Germany pulling that crap. O, and dynamic IPv6 pre-fix also, because can't have you run any servers! Yes, plenty of ways to bypass it but when you have ISP's still stuck in 1990's attitude, with dynamic IPv4/IPv6, limited upload (1/3 to 1/5 of your download), etc ...
est31 9mo ago
I was mostly thinking about CGNAT instead of NAT around your home network. There is a talk by Dmitriy Melnik at RIPE 91 about the costs for ISPs to not adopt ipv6 vs to adopt ipv6 (relevant stuff starts at 9:55). https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/8YZNF9/ https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/8...