Hello deon,
17 Feb 22 20:47, you wrote to me:
de> CGNAT is an IPv4 solution due to the lack of IPv4 addresses - where
de> the answer is IPv6 isnt it?
Yes, you're right. I stand corrected.
de> I've not heard of ISP's selling single static IPv6 addresses - I
de> thought most gave you a /64, /60 or /56 as part of the service you get with
de> them.
I wouldn't know. Here in the US, it is exceedingly difficult to find a large
ISP that supports IPv6. All of the large ISPs have a significant investment in
IPv4 with NAT/CGNAT and are -very- hesitant to change.
It's so much so that all of my computers have IPv6 disabled as there's no need
for it right now.
A side note: here's an interesting opinion article about why IPv6 hasn't had
wide adoption yet in the past 25 years of its existance:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/24/opinion_column_ipv6/
This is quickly becoming off-topic so netmail is welcome or we can move this
somewhere else.
Are you an amateur radio operator?
-- Sean KS4TD
... America is the land of opportunity. Everyone can become a taxpayer.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (1:18/200)
|
