3 ms·
And ISPs in the US will do what ISPs did elsewhere; point to their IPv6 trial as "evidence" of their IPv6 rollout and continue to consume IPv4 address space unt
by tankenmate 13y ago
And ISPs in the US will do what ISPs did elsewhere; point to their IPv6 trial as "evidence" of their IPv6 rollout and continue to consume IPv4 address space until the disaster hits. Also more and more ISPs will prefer to roll out Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) than bother to update the firmware and configuration of their routers and more importantly due to substandard consumer home routers and other CPE; expect your games and P2P based software that doesn't support UPnP port forwarding to choke.
- anonymfus 13y ago>Carrier Grade NAT >that doesn't support UPnP port forwarding Wait, there are Carrier Grade NATs with UPnP support?
- tankenmate 13y agoMost don't you are right, but some are toying with the idea of proxying UPnP requests to "NAT Centres" on the carriers backbone; there are a significant percentage of users who will refuse to put down their controllers and will walk to another provider. The other way this may be solved is to form a technology solution with the console makers to have a drop in solution at the API level; obviously this will disadvantage smaller developers who can't pay to play (not that this will bother the carriers overly). I suspect most likely in the US there will be a nuisance fee add on to your internet connection in order to play "P2P" games (x.ref current Net Nutrality battles in the courts)
- devicenull 13y agoMost games don't support v6 anyway, so it's not like that would help.