Carrier NAT & Static IPs

I was thinking about switching to Plusnet Fibre sometime in the next couple of months, but today I read the news about the Carrier NAT trial. If I were to pay for a static IPv4 address, would I be required to give it up during my 18 month contract if Plusnet wanted to switch to using a carrier NAT system? :/

No, you wouldn't have to give up your static ip.

Is there a plan to roll out CG NAT and would it be just to those without a static IP. Or even just the value products?

We're just trialling to see how it works atm as part of a larger IPv6/IPv4 exhaustion strategy.

In reply to a post by KellyD:

We're just trialling to see how it works atm as part of a larger IPv6/IPv4 exhaustion strategy.

How is the IPv6 trial coming along?

That's reassuring. Thanks for the prompt reply .

It got axed

IPv6? Let's just go back to RFC1. It mentions a 5-bit field for the host ID (which we would now call IP address). 32 IP addresses should be enough for everybody
OK, the "network" at the time had not been built yet and it was planned to have 4 computers...

In reply to a post by xela:

It got axed

What does that mean??
They decided not to bother with IPv6?
Sticking with IPv4 and CG NAT is a better solution than all the hassle of migrating to IPv6??
Or it's just on hold for a while?

As a customer I'm certainly not keen on the idea of CG NAT

We were trialling IPv6. Was working quite well. We stopped the trial after getting loads of feedback. It was a trial, not part of the formal implementation. CGNAT is similar, just a trial to learn how well it works (or doesn't)

In reply to a post by KellyD:

We were trialling IPv6. Was working quite well. We stopped the trial after getting loads of feedback. It was a trial, not part of the formal implementation. CGNAT is similar, just a trial to learn how well it works (or doesn't)

Ah.... So it would be fairer to say that the trial ended. Got it

In reply to a post by Bright:

Ah.... So it would be fairer to say that the trial ended. Got it

More like withdrawn: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?topic=1061...

If you read that post, it sounds like stopping the trial was not something they wanted to do. They also said there it was a "near certainty" that a service trial would start in 2012. Wonder what happened with that?

Perhaps the certainty wasn't near enough?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

More like withdrawn: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?topic=1061...

If you read that post, it sounds like stopping the trial was not something they wanted to do. They also said there it was a "near certainty" that a service trial would start in 2012. Wonder what happened with that?

Thanks Oliver. So it looks like full IPv6 service trials are still planned but there are "priorities and dependencies" holding these back. So I'm wondering if CG NAT is being tested as a stop-gap to buy more time between exhaustion of PlusNet's IPv4 address blocks and migration to IPv6, or as a lower cost solution for many customers...? It doesn't seem like a very appealing solution so there must be a good reason to test it out

I suppose you have a plan in place for when a customer on CGNAT get blacklisted by a site, and suddenly many customers are complaining that they cannot access that site?
Or are you just going to try and see how much hassle that generates?

In reply to a post by Bright:

It doesn't seem like a very appealing solution so there must be a good reason to test it out

I agree. CG NAT will have been a significant project to design and develop, energy that perhaps should have been fed into their IPv6 strategy.

ok the trial went well.

so whats holding back deployment of ipv6?

Possibly the fact that virtually none of the customer base have IP6 capable routers - then again that could be completely wrong

I don't know the availability of IPv6 web sites at present. Certainly none of the hosting firms I've used over the years seems to have made mention of supporting it (so far) and while I've not been actively seeking IPv6 hosting, I've also not been thinking too hard about the old kit I have which is pretty much exclusively IPv4, and think a Carrier NAT solution could be a method to test the 'Carrier level' hardware and later offer IPv6 on the 'internet' side rather than customer side, IYSWIM. While that's not the intent, it serves to allow expansion of customer numbers for a while longer.

It would work as a fairly good intermediate step, so long as problems from the NAT feature don't mess too many people about. Can see it being unpopular with peer-to-peer users, perhaps, but many other services should be tied to username/password controls over traffic limits, connection limits, etc, rather than IP alone.

For many 'home users' it will be fine, and if only torrent users are affected, it's going to perhaps need some creative explanations about what the problem is, when a teenager finds they're unable to get the music / film / porn their friends are downloading...

I'm planning on fibre and lower speed BB with different ISPs over the next few years so will (hopefully) be able to cope with whatever goes on. My older XP systems will eventually die anyway, and the IPv6-ready kit will just need switching to the more 'go-ahead' ISP when IPv6 is rolled out by them.

Not just teenagers who use P2P /torrents,ect carrier grade nat would have an impact on lots of other things such as if they have domain names linked to their public ip adress and online multiplayer games could be affected by this sad idea

As for IPV6 and the plusnet router , i think that the TG582N is compatable via a FW upgrade ,

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 19-Jan-13 18:13:42)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

As for IPV6 and the plusnet router , i think that the TG582N is compatable via a FW upgrade ,

The TG582N provided by AAISP supports IPv6, and I think any recent enough firmware already supports it, no need to upgrade.

thats the easy cop out, just start the service with a disclaimer about needing compatible equipment.

To which my response would be "Get Lost" I am very happy with my Netgear DG834G v4
Also of course the vast majority of their customers are using the pre 582n routers and, if I was one of those, my reaction would be "Supply me with a compatible router free without P&P charges and no 12 month tie in"

The 582n is already compatible, it may need a firmware upgrade but they should be able to do it via TR069.
So they've already supplied you with one.

No they haven't
I have been a customer since way before that came out as have the majority of the other customers
That has only been on offer since the beginning of last year - before that it was a 585

Well, OK in which case they decided that IPv6 would mean sending off too many new routers.
Unless of course they can also provide a firmware upgrade for the 585.

edit - and of course they can provide the service but that doesn't force anybody to use it. It just means that it will be possible to access IPv6 only sites - and there are a few already - if one wants. At present, you'll have to use a tunnel service to access them.

Edited by deleted (Sat 19-Jan-13 19:42:53)

Shows ignorance
If the majority of the users only have IP4 compatible routers will that mean that they would have to be given ip4 addresses and, if this is the case, would a person on ip6 be totally messed up if his router failed and his only spare was ip4 capable

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

Shows ignorance
If the majority of the users only have IP4 compatible routers will that mean that they would have to be given ip4 addresses and, if this is the case, would a person on ip6 be totally messed up if his router failed and his only spare was ip4 capable

Using IPv6 does not stop having IPv4 as well. So not sure what you are aiming at. If their only IPv6 router fails, they'll just go IPv4 only until they can replace it (and possibly moan about some IPv6 only sites being unreachable, but that's inevitable).

edit - having done a search for some IPv6 only sites I found a few links which I cannot post here - they would get me banned from the forum - I'm sure there will be somebody there who got IPv6 via tunnelbroker.net just to reach these sites

Edited by deleted (Sat 19-Jan-13 20:12:54)

To be clear I never suggested ipv4 not been offered, and the only reasonable way to supply ipv6 currently is dual stacking it with ipv4, so in your case you would have no issue. You could simply just choose to not use the ipv6 and stay as you are.

I suppose CG NAT or IPv4 tunneling would be acceptable, but only when dual stacked with a dedicated IPv6 address. Just to bundle hundreds or thousands of users on one IPv4 address without also giving them an option of a unique IPv6 address would be horrible.

This is a classic case where the regulators should come in to encourage or enforce the preferred option (IPv6) instead of a fudge (CG NAT).

And logging will be fun, the next time the likes of Ben Dover start fingering an IP address, hundreds or thousands of people could be using it at any one time. I wonder if Plusnet have considered this scenario for the trial?

Yes, I know it's not just teens, esp as several Linux distros are shared by torrents, but it was in part for how limited the effects may turn out to be. Similarly, while for those who are deep into certain games, it would be a nuisance, I wonder what proportion of internet users (let alone PN customers, given the lack, before now, of 'unlimited' accounts) will be unduly affected.

Of course, as someone with a fixed IP, it's a little academic for me, for now (unless I move ISP, or want to go to IPv6 on my PN connection). Moving ISP is unlikely for now, though I detest the unwillingness of PN to reward loyalty of customers with similar discounts to those they offer new users. The half price fibre offer is one example. If fibre was already available in my area, I'd have been willing to get a new phone line, use PN for line rental, calls and fibre, but as an existing customer, they'd not do the same deal...

Thanks both, for the info.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

And logging will be fun, the next time the likes of Ben Dover start fingering an IP address, hundreds or thousands of people could be using it at any one time. I wonder if Plusnet have considered this scenario for the trial?

If you don't mind, I'd rather you didn't mention about Ben Dover fingering my IP address... That will teach me not to post my PlusNet phone number in a BT phone box!

I would like to see 2 regulations, to encourage both ipv6 deployment and good ipv4 management.

1 - No cg nat allowed unless a ipv6 service is available.
2 - No cg nat used on customers with only a single ipv4 unless no other customers have more than 1 ipv4.

I think cg nat is preffered because isp's see a better business case for it, business case ahead of whats needed for the internet. I forsee non natted dynamic ips becoming a premium product with this.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 20-Jan-13 12:22:40)

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

Possibly the fact that virtually none of the customer base have IP6 capable routers - then again that could be completely wrong

That's a bit like saying that people with old TVs are holding back HDTV programming. They're not, they just don't benefit from the new tech.

An ISP could role out IPv6 tomorrow and it would have no impact on IPv4 users.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation with customer IPv6 routers and ISPs rolling out IPv6 but ISPs aren't being "held back," as such.

In reply to a post by ultra:

I don't know the availability of IPv6 web sites at present.

Expanding rapidly.

See: http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/0...

Today, ten percent of the Alexa Top 1000 websites are now enabled with IPv6 and large access networks have enabled IPv6 for their end users, according to measurements we made for World IPv6 Launch.

Four of the five largest websites in the world � Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo!, and Wikipedia � all serve IPv6 from their main websites today. In addition, content distribution networks like Limelight and Akamai are providing services to their customers to enable IPv6 hosted content, and hosting companies are making it possible for hosted websites to use IPv6 as well. The three largest web-hosting companies in Germany serve IPv6 for all their hosted websites.

Does Plusnet use Carrier Grade NAT now, like BT the parent does?

Only as a trial at present

Can you opt-out like you can with BT?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Can you opt-out like you can with BT?

Unlike the BT trial, Plusnet's was "opt in" so no-one should be NAT-ed without their knowledge.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Unlike the BT trial, Plusnet's was "opt in" so no-one should be NAT-ed without their knowledge.

Is there a link to that info on the Plusnet website?

It was a request on the Plusnet forum for trialists.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Unlike the BT trial, Plusnet's was "opt in" so no-one should be NAT-ed without their knowledge.

Is there a link to that info on the Plusnet website?

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1106...

If you are asking if customers are being opted-in silently post-trial, I have no idea.

I thought the trial was over Jim?

Yes and no - this post explains it

Hi all,

Thanks very much to those who took part (and those who volunteered but weren't given test account details).

We're winding this down now and are happy that we've pretty much covered everything, though if anyone on the trial does play any games it'd be interesting to see if those work - our feedback indicates that PC gaming in particular on the Steam platform seems to work well, but if on the off chance anyone plays anything and would be happy to test it that'd be interesting.

The test accounts will continue to work should you wish to use them, we'll let you know if these become needed for any other trial or purpose.

Thank you once more to all involved.

When was that Jim please ?

8th March 2013 http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1128...
I can't remember who has permissions to see this board which was why I left the link off originally

Edited by deleted (Sat 04-May-13 14:52:38)

Thanks .

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

8th March 2013 http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1128...
I can't remember who has permissions to see this board which was why I left the link off originally

I can see it