cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

acarneiro
Grafter
Posts: 100
Registered: 20-03-2012

Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

Can't help to think that we're being ask to trial a bodge in order to mitigate the poor implementaton of the technology that would actually solve the problem, rather than disguise it.
Yes, I know there is an IPv4 intenet out there, but we've known for years this was coming and so far the industry has been dragging its feet on IPv6 deployment. ISPs especially.
We've had an IPv6 trial. What happened to that?
adie:green adjusted thread title.
43 REPLIES
Plusnet Alumni (retired) orbrey
Plusnet Alumni (retired)
Posts: 10,540
Registered: 18-07-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

The IPv6 trial is on hold at the moment, we'll post back on that when things are moving again. Even if ISPs were all ready though, as per the initial post in this thread there'll still be services that require IPv4 addresses to work so both will have to run concurrently for a while at least, which is one of the main reasons we're running this trial.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,646
Thanks: 206
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Is it planned that those who need a non-CG ip address will be provided with one - free of charge?

vitell
Newbie
Posts: 8
Registered: 16-01-2013

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Quote from: acarneiro
Can't help to think that we're being ask to trial a bodge...
That's exactly what we're being asked. NAT is a bodge. It always has been. The fact that any ISP would rather push a bodge than a proper solution (and remember, they've had almost 20 years to develop that solution) is somewhat telling. It is worth noting that not even this community forum is available on IPv6 and that would have been about the easiest thing for them to implement.
What amazes me, though, is the number of people in this thread who have said "Woah, great, sign me up for this crippled service."
Quote from: Matt
As such everyone will still need an IPv4 address for the foreseeable future."
And as long as nobody bites the bullet and, instead, continues to push bodges, that will always be the case. It's not like IPv6 has suddenly appeared from nowhere. You have had a considerable amount of time to implement IPv6 service and you have chosen not to. Your inaction is the problem. CGNAT is the lazy can't be bothered doing it properly solution.
The implementation of CGNAT on the cheaper ISPs will create a two-tier Internet. I am amazed customers are happy to accept that.
Nicholas (who does run IPv6 over his backup PlusNet connection, but that's another story!)
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,437
Thanks: 686
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Blame seems to be being heaped on Plusnet for not implementing IPv6. Please could people explain why Plusnet are responsible for servers in say Argentina which are still IPv4 only in 10 years time? Or are people saying that Plusnet should at full speed move all their users to IPv6 and be the first ISP to lock their users out of the half of the internet that is IPv4 only?
Quote from: Matt
Even if the world switched on IPv6 today there would still be people and applications that don't work under IPv6, some games consoles for example. As such everyone will still need an IPv4 address for the foreseeable future.

CGNAT means Plusnet users will be able to access the IPv4 internet whilst using IPv6 as their main method.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
vitell
Newbie
Posts: 8
Registered: 16-01-2013

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Quote from: jelv
Blame seems to be being heaped on Plusnet for not implementing IPv6.
Amongst other ISPs.
Quote
Please could people explain why Plusnet are responsible for servers in say Argentina which are still IPv4 only in 10 years time?
That's a non sequitur. By that argument, we should still have water towers on our railways for anybody who wants to run steam trains and all TV programmes should be broadcast in 4:3 for those people who haven't got new TVs. The fact is that anybody running IPv4 web servers in ten years time won't have many customers. The opposite argument is, of course, if you don't have IPv6 in ten years time, how are you going to access the many IPv6 only services which will exist then?
Quote
Or are people saying that Plusnet should at full speed move all their users to IPv6 and be the first ISP to lock their users out of the half of the internet that is IPv4 only?
I don't think that anybody would suggest that, not least because it's entirely possible to run IPv4 and IPv6 side by side as I am doing right now. What I am saying is that Plusnet (and other ISPs) have had plenty of time to bring in IPv6 services and provide both IPv4 and IPv6 to their users. Plusnet have made the business decision not to do this.
It is worth pointing out that there are some services which are not available to anybody who is not running IPv6 right now - try http://www.loopsofzen.co.uk/ for example. The number of these IPv6-only services will increase - if you don't have IPv6 you won't be able to access them.
Quote
CGNAT means Plusnet users will be able to access the IPv4 internet whilst using IPv6 as their main method.
Absolutely right. If Plusnet are running out of IPv4 addresses, then CGNAT may be the only logical solution to accessing the legacy Internet. There is no excuse, however, for not rolling IPv6 out right now. My own personal opinion is that any company not providing IPv6 connectivity should not be allowed to be called an ISP, since they are not providing Internet services, only legacy Internet services.
Nicholas.
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,437
Thanks: 686
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

At the moment, if you unplug all devices from the router and disable wireless there is a certain amount of background internet noise hitting your routing all the time as we frequently see people reporting. If you were on CGNAT surely all of that traffic would stop as you'd be unreachable?
If so for users with a low usage allowance that just use the connection for browsing, email, streaming, Skype it would be a positive advantage to be on CGNAT?
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 17,641
Thanks: 535
Fixes: 159
Registered: 05-04-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Can we keep this thread on topic please? Specifically for people wanting to sign up to help us test this for the short period of time we're asking.
We're happy to have this discussion, but maybe in a different thread would be more suitable.
Thanks.
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Chris Parr
 Plusnet Staff
vitell
Newbie
Posts: 8
Registered: 16-01-2013

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Quote from: jelv
...If you were on CGNAT surely all of that traffic would stop as you'd be unreachable? If so for users with a low usage allowance that just use the connection for browsing, email, streaming, Skype it would be a positive advantage to be on CGNAT?
Not at all. You could still be open to anybody on the same (non-NAT) network as you (i.e. other plusnet customers). NAT is not a firewall and should never, ever, be thought of as a firewall.
Quote from: Chris
Can we keep this thread on topic please? Specifically for people wanting to sign up to help us test this for the short period of time we're asking.
I won't post in this thread any more. I do, though, think it is entirely relevant that Plusnet customers (and specifically testers) are fully aware of the implications and limitations of the proposed CGNAT based service.
Nicholas.
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 17,641
Thanks: 535
Fixes: 159
Registered: 05-04-2007

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Quote from: vitell
I won't post in this thread any more. I do, though, think it is entirely relevant that Plusnet customers (and specifically testers) are fully aware of the implications and limitations of the proposed CGNAT based service.

And we're happy to have that discussion, however this thread was meant for people to sign up to the trial. These discussions would be better suited to a different thread (I've asked the moderators to split them into a thread for that purpose).
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Chris Parr
 Plusnet Staff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17,334
Thanks: 969
Fixes: 114
Registered: 11-01-2008

Re: Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

mod:note
split from volunteer topic.
Will Moderate For Thanks
camlin
Newbie
Posts: 3
Registered: 16-01-2013

Re: Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

Hello,
I feel this will really have to be made optional and it will have to be clear you are getting what I would call a "reduced service".
Reason is that this is double-NATting (ISP NAT followed by home router NAT), and this is known to cause issues.
For example, all Apple routers that I know of (Time Capsule, Airport Express and Airport Extreme) will complain loudly when they detect double NAT situations (and they will refuse any further configuration) and this could be true of others.
Even, if it is rare now that people hosts their own servers (thus reducing the need for port redirection), this would still wreak the audio//video of most VoIP system (including all messengers like MSN, iChat, Facetime, etc).
It is also likely that it will wreck havoc with network gaming (I think a PS3 would quickly declare this as a type 3 NAT, i.e, un-usable).
Now normal HTTP browsing and IPTV should still work ok. So yes, there could be some benefit to it. But it would have to be clear this is only used for the most basic of basic accounts...
If we are looking at that, then we should probably ensure first that IPv6 is at least possible on the PlusNet network (without requirement of tunneling out). Admittedly, I haven't checked in the last year, but a year ago, it was impossible.
Some can do it. For example, the ISP  "Free" in France, has been providing its customers with IPv6 capability (and IPv6 capable router) for the last 6 years or so...
The only other situation where I could see this work is as a fully managed service, meaning:
- You give people a pure router/firewall that  does not do NAT itself.
-  You provide the DHCP service and assign a  IP address range (in addition to the already provided DNS service).
-  You ensure customers using the same IP cannot go on each other network (that should be implicit, but needs to be stated anyway).
In that case, if you were to provide it as a basic, fully managed service, then perhaps it could work.
HTH
Regards,
vitell
Newbie
Posts: 8
Registered: 16-01-2013

Re: Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

Quote from: camlin
I feel this will really have to be made optional and it will have to be clear you are getting what I would call a "reduced service".
With most ISPs, I suspect that, not using CGNAT will become chargeable. I suspect that some low-end ISPs will only offer CGNAT.
Quote
Reason is that this is double-NATting (ISP NAT followed by home router NAT), and this is known to cause issues.
NAT on its own causes problems. CGNAT will only exacerbate this.
Quote
Some can do it. For example, the ISP  "Free" in France, has been providing its customers with IPv6 capability (and IPv6 capable router) for the last 6 years or so...
And (without naming names), there are several UK ISPs which can provide an IPv6 service. I can think of one which provides IPv6 by default.
Quote
if you were to provide it as a basic, fully managed service, then perhaps it could work.
There are a large number of people who will be completely unaffected by CGNAT, even if it involved double-NATting. The problem is that any form of management, shared address allocation or other "let's make it work for everybody" solution will add to the cost...
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,307
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: 08-01-2008

Re: Testers needed for Carrier Grade NAT

Quote from: vitell
I do, though, think it is entirely relevant that Plusnet customers (and specifically testers) are fully aware of the implications and limitations of the proposed CGNAT based service.

This is exactly the point of testing.
Testers get an alternate login which can be used just for specific tests (the user's existing login remains available for use when needed or if problems are encountered).
Anyone convinced this will cause problems might be the best volunteers to prove what the problems are.  Obviously some will not be in a position to swap logins even for short tests but hopefully others will. Smiley
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,646
Thanks: 206
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Carrier Grade NAT Discussion

If I had only one PC, I'd happily sign-up for a trial.
However, I don't want to get dragged out of bed to fix somebodies application.  Cheesy