Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by detaro 1580 days ago
No, ISPs shouldn't force users behind NATs.
2 comments

During a shortage, push comes to shove.
> "shouldn't"s are not very useful during shortages.

There is an important difference between "it might be necessary to put them behind NATs" and "shouldn't they be on NATs?".

Hence the word "many." It's interesting because econ deniers are common at university, haha.

In any case, /16 should be enough room to prioritize.

Incorrect. ISPs should use NAT. Users should pay for their own address if they desire.
I'd rather the ISP pushed for IPv6.
We are at least at the ISP I work for. That is a major project for us this year, but any network engineer can tell you that deploying IPv6 is not straight forward at the ISP level. Getting everyone together on how to have some standard form of addressing from different entities is the toughest lift. Get Juniper, Cisco, and Arista on the phone and you will get three different ways on how to deploy it. You don't want to be the odd duck once the dust settles.
Interesting. What are the big differences if you're allowed to talk about it? I have no doubt that the IPv6 rollout is difficult, I helped move some simply cloud stuff to IPv6 and even that had a few issues. I'm much happier without the heavy layers of NAT though.
T-Mobile is actually one of the largest users of IPv6