IPV6 V CG-NAT

[#1]

Please can some 1 tell me why Plus.net would want to do CG-NAT  (Carrier-grade Network Address Translation) in stead of the More secure IPV6. When Plus.net is owned by BT who signed up to  IPV6.
Is it Pressure from Government who  might be against IPV6 because it is encrypted . IPV6 is inevitable because more and more people are getting internet. Be it to there home mobile phone or tablet PC.
Or is it just about money?

[#2]

PN have trialled CG-NAT but have not announced that they are to use it.
PN are trialling IPV6 but have not made any announcements about when/if they'll support it.
IPV6 is not encrypted.

[#3]

Here is an interesting page to read about IPV6
http://ipv6.com/articles/security/IPsec.htm
It reads like its is encrypted.
Any how the Question was Why would you try this CG-NAT  (Carrier-grade Network Address Translation) instead of just doing IVP6.
I'm inclined to want the more secure IVP6.
wouldn't you

[#4]

IPSec is a way of securing IPv6 traffic, however there are also ways of securing IPv4 traffic.
We trialled CGNAT over 2 years ago and we haven't made any further announcements since then.

[#5]

Thank you for your reply  Chris
But can you say Why Plus.net would try  CG-NAT  instead of just doing IVP6.

[#6]

Well a lot of internet access via mobile phones runs on CGNAT
So I'd say it works perfectly satisfactorily for now anyway.

[#7]

I think the CG-NAT trial was because Plusnet were running out of IPv4 addresses. They then calculated it was cheaper to buy blocks of IPv4 addresses from the US than introduce CG-NAT.

[#8]

Quote from: Hognose

Thank you for your reply  Chris But can you say Why Plus.net would try  CG-NAT  instead of just doing IVP6.

Let me turn this around and ask why we wouldn't trial different suggestions? We trialed CGNAT over 2 years ago, not particularly recently.

[#9]

Quote from: Hognose

Thank you for your reply  Chris But can you say Why Plus.net would try  CG-NAT  instead of just doing IVP6.

Not to belittle Chris's answer (as obviously trying all alternatives is better than just assuming one will work fine) but I can see CG-NAT having a place alongside IPv6 in a dual stack environment. Until every single service that you use supports IPv6 you'll still need an IPv4 address, as will everyone else who wants to access it. Additionally there are devices out there (granted declining every day) that people are using that don't support IPv6 (old XP machines, Android 2.2 or iOS 2) that will need some form of connectivity.
The main drawback against CG-NAT is sharing the same IPv4 address as others, which is arguably better than not having an IPv4 address at all, and when it's not your means of primary communication (eg Gaming and P2P working over v6 instead) then your v4 address matters less.

Quote from: PeteB

I think the CG-NAT trial was because Plusnet were running out of IPv4 addresses. They then calculated it was cheaper to buy blocks of IPv4 addresses from the US than introduce CG-NAT.

Judging by the cost of IPv4 addresses, I'd be inclined to believe that this move was done in the interest of customers rather than cost.