[lolc]

I think that IP4 will see itself out when service degradation becomes generally noticeable. CGNAT is really painful to operate.

Remember the IE6 banners? There will be a time in ten years (haha it's always ten years!) when you'll see "Our site runs with degraded performance over IPv4. Please contact your administrator."

[eznzt]

>CGNAT is really painful to operate.

For whom? There are lots of providers (for example Huawei) that offer turnkey solutions for ISPs to painlessly roll out CGNAT.

[lolc]

CGNAT means extra memory and extra processing on network nodes. Less freedom to switch routes. Operating something extra that can only degrade performance, but not improve, is painful.

The current situation is that the ISP can lessen load on their CGNAT solutions by providing IP6.

[anderspitman]

> CGNAT is really painful to operate

It also makes it much more difficult for customers to stress your upload bandwidth though.

[lolc]

You mean to say customers get a degraded experience on CGNAT.

[anderspitman]

Yup. If you can't host a webserver from your home IP, that's one less thing your ISP needs to worry about taxing their network. It's sad the incentives just aren't aligned for a decentralized internet.