|
|
|
|
|
by lucb1e
1092 days ago
|
|
How is the IPv6 roll-out over there? One the one hand, I assume bad due to cheap equipment. On the other, it's not like v6 addresses are expensive and you need some way of addressing every subscriber anyway. As more people sign up (as the country gets more people with internet access), you need more equipment which could support v6 out of the box, and the excuse for CGNAT I've always heard is old equipment that is harder to upgrade than to put a NAT router in front of. Could go either way from my POV. If the roll-out is good, then all those people are already taken care of and the minority left on v4 CGNAT aren't bothered by the collective rate limit. (To preempt the eventual remark that users can generate a billion addresses in v6: rate limiting on v6 works by limiting whatever prefix the ISP gives out to subscribers, like /56, not individual addresses the way it's often done with v4.) As an aside, it should also be kept in mind that not every use case involves signing entire countries up for their service, even in an ideal case. |
|
In fiber some do the same, although thankfuly most place v4 behind a cgnat while offering ipv6.
The whole 1 ip 1 user even if dynamic quite false and is a mess.