Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

Posted by Unknown on from the proxy-banned-from-posting dept.

judgecorp writes "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be sharing one IP address, through a gateway. The move is controversial as it could make some Internet services fail, but PlusNet says it is inevitable, and only a test at this stage." Regarding the failure of IPv6, these graphs imply otherwise.

6 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. This is just the beginning by alphaminus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rather than doing this correctly, it will go like this. All "home" users will get CG-NAT. "Business" users will be allowed public IPs at a steep premium, and only when that possibility is completely exhausted, will IPv6 truly begin to be implemented. Hell, people might just use duct tape code and NAT subterfuge to drag this out another decade or two.

  2. My Rant.... by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Informative

    How the hell does slashdot.org not support IPV6, I thought this was a tech website?

    1. Re:My Rant.... by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Informative

      How the hell does slashdot.org not support IPV6, I thought this was a tech website?

      Forget IPV6 ... it doesn't have valid HTML, valid CSS and looks terrible on mobile devices.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  3. Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google reports about 1% of their traffic is IPv6. That's probably a better estimate of IPv6 deployment.

  4. Re:I recall MxStream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

    For a lot of organizations, that's a bonus. If you don't trust the outside network, you certainly don't want to peer arbitrarily with them, and certainly not at any outside machine's initiative. With NAT, an outside system can't initiate connectivity with any machine inside the NAT boundary without some kind of prior arrangement, so no open-ended network scanning.

    That's what firewalls are for, not NAT. Please stop confusing the two.

  5. Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" by Chirs · · Score: 5, Informative

    I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one.

    Um....they did?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresses