Hi,

I just had a few weeks of pain with CGNAT not working, users constantly having performance issues.

the question of why not, comes up and people say that NAT with v4 makes it more secure, so that would probably need to be debunked as well.

-- Yes, we'll have to explain this properly. We have quite a few of home users expecting static IP's, so for them the "NAT security" does not exist.

I'm sure we can get performance results somewhere showing that IPv6 is faster.

There should be a cost saving in the long run, if you don't have to CGNAT.

I'll try and spend some time with this, there is a lot of info from other international NOG's.

Tonie Ehlers

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 2:34 PM <donald@nog.net.za> wrote:

Maybe this can be a thread for this question.

Maybe not a why, unless we convince CDNs to make peering on IPv6 compulsory otherwise you cant peer.

Why do we need IPv6?
It is mandatory to have IPv6 BGP sessions when peering with CDNs like Meta and Google.

the question of why not, comes up and people say that NAT with v4 makes it more secure, so that would probably need to be debunked as well.

We know it should be the opposite way round where we say “We want IPv6 because we dont want NAT”

Other thoughts welcome
_______________________________________________
Zanog-ipv6-discuss mailing list -- zanog-ipv6-discuss@lists.nog.net.za
To unsubscribe send an email to zanog-ipv6-discuss-leave@lists.nog.net.za