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More like withdrawn: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?topic=1061...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More like withdrawn: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php?topic=1061...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