cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

IPV6 V CG-NAT

Hognose
Hooked
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎12-06-2015

IPV6 V CG-NAT

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?
8 REPLIES
pwatson
Rising Star
Posts: 2,468
Thanks: 8
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎26-11-2012

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

Huh
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.
Hognose
Hooked
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎12-06-2015

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

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
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 17,667
Thanks: 659
Fixes: 163
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

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.
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Chris Parr
 Plusnet Staff
Hognose
Hooked
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎12-06-2015

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

Thank you for your reply  Chris
But can you say Why Plus.net would try  CG-NAT  instead of just doing IVP6.
x47c
Grafter
Posts: 878
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎14-08-2009

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

Well a lot of internet access via mobile phones runs on CGNAT
So I'd say it works perfectly satisfactorily for now anyway.
brueton
Grafter
Posts: 309
Thanks: 5
Registered: ‎03-07-2009

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

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.
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 17,667
Thanks: 659
Fixes: 163
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

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.
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Chris Parr
 Plusnet Staff
matthews
Rising Star
Posts: 141
Thanks: 6
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎13-08-2014

Re: IPV6 V CG-NAT

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.