openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to RARPSL
Re: ISPs react to the Dangers of CGNAT said by RARPSL:Which would help now while they try to get IPv6 fully rolled out. No, it would allow more procrastination. Most ISPs didn't begin actually moving to IPv6 until the threat became real and in their face. Reallocating IPv4 addresses will only allow them to relax their migrations. The Internet needs to move and be done with the migration soonest. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to anon anon
said by anon anon :Even if they did give them all up it's just a minor stop gap. Maybe buys a couple more years.
Which would help now while they try to get IPv6 fully rolled out. Aside from the old Class A /8s there are some more /8s in the Class E range that are not being used. The Class Ds are still needed for the inefficient IPv4 Multi-Cast (which is much better supported by IPv6 Multi-cast since there are not the redundant sessions that IPv4 Multi-Cast needs). |
|
| reply to battleop
Even if they did give them all up it's just a minor stop gap. Maybe buys a couple more years. |
|
| "Carrier Grade NAT (CGNAT) has a number of limitations which need to be considered. Most importantly, it goes against the open spirit of the Internet and the principles which have generated such incredible innovation over the years."
So let's get all of these companies who are still hoarding all of those /8s to give them up. Hoarding IPs certainly is not in the spirit of the internet.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. |
|
