Mailing List Archive

Verizon DSL moving to CGN
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.

--
Josh Smith
kD8HRX

email/jabber: juicewvu@gmail.com
Phone: 304.237.9369(c)

Sent from my iPad


On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting.
>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
Good to see that they are providing a way for users to opt out. I'm hoping
that other ISP's will do the same when they implement CGN.

Oliver

-------------------------------------

Oliver Garraux
Check out my blog: blog.garraux.net
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Joshua Smith <juicewvu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may
> be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
>
> --
> Josh Smith
> kD8HRX
>
> email/jabber: juicewvu@gmail.com
> Phone: 304.237.9369(c)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting.
> >
> >
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
>
>
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans.
Their IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying "3Q12" :(.

On 4/6/2013 9:32 PM, Joshua Smith wrote:
> Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
>
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm

<blockquote>

> What is CGN - and How to opt-out The number and types of devices using the Internet have increased dramatically in recent years and, as a result, address space for these devices is being rapidly exhausted. Today’s technology for IP addresses is referred to as IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4). The IP addresses aligned with IPv4 are expected to be depleted at some point in the near future. The next generation of IP address space is IPv6, which will enable far more addresses to be assigned than IPv4. Unfortunately, most servers and other Internet devices will not be speaking IPv6 for a while, so IPv4 will remain standard for some time to come.
>
> During this transitional period, in select areas for High Speed Internet residential customers, Verizon will be implementing Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGN or Carrier Grade NAT). Verizon FiOS and Verizon Business customers are not impacted at this time by the change. This transition will enable Verizon to continue serving customers with IPv4 internet addresses. CGN will not impact the access, reliability, speed, or security of Verizon’s broadband services. However, there are some applications such as online gaming, VPN access, FTP service, surveillance cameras, etc., that may not work when broadband service is provided via a CGN.
>
> For our customers utilizing these types of applications, Verizon provides the ability to "opt out “of CGN. To "opt out" you must:
>
> Be a Residential customer with High Speed Internet Service. There is no need to “opt-out” if you are a FiOS or Business customer.
> Have already been transitioned to the Carrier Grade Network by Verizon. If you are a Residential High Speed Internet customer and are unable to opt-out, it is likely that you have not yet been transitioned to CGN.
>
>
> To "opt out" of CGN sign onto your My Verizon account and select "Opt out of Carrier Grade Network".

</blockquote>


I like how, according to the document, Verizon must first break your
connectivity, prior to you being able to opt-out. :-)

Also:

> select "Opt out of Carrier Grade Network"

Smart wording. :-)

Frankly, I'm surprised to see this news. I thought Verizon had better
things to do that plan any kind of upgrades or changes to something
that everyone thought they consider dead anyways.

C.
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm

I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
are on the transfer market.

Matthew Kaufman
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
----- Original Message -----
> From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>

> Interesting.
>
http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm

What I find amusing is how they call it "Carrier Grade NAT" one time, and
then switch to calling it "Carrier Grade Network", thereby making it sound
all cool and better and stuff...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
> are on the transfer market.

That depends on what you think the prices are for IPv4 addresses and what
you think the prices are for CGN boxes. At the prices I'm hearing, it's
cheaper to CGN 50k users (or more) than to purchase IPv4 addresses.

Otoh, ARIN isn't exhausted yet so getting IPv4 addresses there should
still be a lot cheaper than doing CGN?

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.

Joe

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, "Joshua Smith" <juicewvu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
>
> --
> Josh Smith
> kD8HRX
>
> email/jabber: juicewvu@gmail.com
> Phone: 304.237.9369(c)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
>
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
> I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
> are on the transfer market.

You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?

You think the "Carrier Grade" in "Carrier Grade NAT" isn't just a
rhetorically constructed distraction, from the fact that simple NAT
may be implemented, and yeah, end users are certain to experience
annoyances, either way...


>
> Matthew Kaufman
--
-JH
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On 07/04/13 12:11, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 6 April 2013 18:24, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interesting.
>>
>> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
>
> <blockquote>
...
>> ...CGN will not impact the access,
>> reliability, speed, or security of Verizon’s broadband services. ...
...
> </blockquote>

Good luck with that, pretty much by definition it has to do all four
(albeit at levels that shouldn't be detectable to the end user)


> I like how, according to the document, Verizon must first break your
> connectivity, prior to you being able to opt-out. :-)

If you look at it from their side this makes a lot of sense, helps to
ensure that only those who actually get breakage from the CGN opt out,
otherwise you'd never know to request it.
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Julien Goodwin <nanog@studio442.com.au>wrote:

> >> ...CGN will not impact the access,
> >> reliability, speed, or security of Verizon’s broadband services. ...
> ...
> > </blockquote>
>
> Good luck with that, pretty much by definition it has to do all four
> (albeit at levels that shouldn't be detectable to the end user)
>


I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6
would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:40:09 -0400, Christopher Morrow said:

> I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6
> would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(

The answer depends on whether the person making the decision thinks they'll
have left the company before the IPv6 birds come home to roost. ;)
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support
> v6 would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through
> that :(

IPv6 deployment is not a short term solution to IPv4 address depletion.
Would you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite (ie
your IPv4 is still CGN:ed, just in a different way)?

CGN is here to stay for IPv4. The solution for long term Internet growth
is IPv6.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64

My 2 cents

On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much more painful just upgrading the dsl plant to support v6 would be vs deploying the cgn equipment and funneling users through that :(
>
> IPv6 deployment is not a short term solution to IPv4 address depletion. Would you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite (ie your IPv4 is still CGN:ed, just in a different way)?
>
> CGN is here to stay for IPv4. The solution for long term Internet growth is IPv6.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:

> CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
> At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
> Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64

CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the
water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).

My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address
exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.

Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet
subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a
completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for
IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access.
MAP is also CGN.

I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I don't
understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?

--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
* Mikael Abrahamsson

> My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping
> anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4
> address exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at
> any time.
>
> Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet
> subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a
> completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for
> IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access.
> MAP is also CGN.
>
> I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I
> don't understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?

Technically I agree with all of the above. However, going for the NAT444
flavour of CGN might well delay or lower the perceived importance of
IPv6 deployment within an ISP. The immediate problem is IPv4 service
continuity, and if that is to be accomplished without IPv6 being part of
it, it's easy to postpone doing anything about IPv6.

I went to an interesting presentation from Kabel Deutschland last month,
who have deployed DS-Lite to their residential subscribers. One of the
messages was that once the decision was made to implement DS-Lite to
deal with IPv4 exhaustion, there was no problem getting the necessary
support to deploy IPv6 - it was no longer a separate and
non-revenue-generating problem, but an essential building block needed
for their IPv4 service continuity. (MAP and 464XLAT would yield the same
effect, of course.)

To answer your earlier question - yes, I'd very much prefer to have
DS-Lite over NAT444, because only the former will ensure that I get
native IPv6 once my native IPv4 gets taken away. With NAT444, I'm no
closer to having IPv6 than I was before NAT444.

That said, there are of course some things that may make anything except
NAT444 undeployable. Verizon might have old DSLAMs that cannot deal with
IPv6, or customer-controlled/owned (layer-3) HGWs. If so, their hands
are tied.

--
Tore Anderson
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
* Mikael Abrahamsson

> Otoh, ARIN isn't exhausted yet so getting IPv4 addresses there should
> still be a lot cheaper than doing CGN?

From what I hear several ISPs in the ARIN region prefer to obtain
second-hand IPv4 addresses (or deploy CGN boxes) over requesting
addresses directly from ARIN, and the reason is that ARIN, per policy,
will only give its members addresses to cover three months' worth of
consumption, and that this period is simply too short for the allocation
to be operationally useful, especially for large organisations.

I have an anecdote to share here: A while back, a techie from a large
organisation in the RIPE region told me that from their point of view,
the RIPE NCC was effectively depleted once they implemented the
three-month period for allocations on the 1st of July 2011, because they
needed more than three months to actually put a new allocation in
production - hence they couldn't justify anything any longer.

When transferring, on the other hand, ARIN's policies allows for
obtaining up to 24 months' worth of space. This gives longer-term
operational predictability, which may easily justify the cost of the
addresses themselves. Same thing goes for deploying CGNs instead - the
organisation is then free to plan as far ahead as it feels like, without
being constrained by ARIN policies. That has a value, possibly more than
the cost of the CGN boxes themselves.

Tore
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10
commandments
and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
enabled on them
it would be great.

But till then we just change a RFC here, band-aid IPv4 there and wait
till everything reaches critical mass and comes crashing on our heads.

On 4/7/2013 5:38 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>> Interesting.
>>
> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
>
> What I find amusing is how they call it "Carrier Grade NAT" one time, and
> then switch to calling it "Carrier Grade Network", thereby making it sound
> all cool and better and stuff...
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/6/13, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>> On 4/6/2013 6:24 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to see a CGN box that is cheaper than IPv4 addresses currently
>> are on the transfer market.
>
> You mean like a few linux servers running iptables nat-masquerade?
>
> You think the "Carrier Grade" in "Carrier Grade NAT" isn't just a
> rhetorically constructed distraction, from the fact that simple NAT
> may be implemented, and yeah, end users are certain to experience
> annoyances, either way...

Forget about the "annoying users" part; the "carrier-grade" part of
CGN is all about not annoying the service provider. As far as I'm
aware, iptables does not include deterministic port translation based
on source address, nor easy-to-configure hooks for CALEA [*]. It may
well turn out that once one factors in support your costs are higher
with large scale NAT-on-Linux than if you'd sucked it up and coughed
up a quarter mil for an appliance.

-r

[*] I'd love to hear that I'm wrong on this count, but a how-to
document that explains how one can lovingly handcraft such a thing as
opposed to a special refactored distro that's ready to plug-and-chug
appliance style will only serve to reinforce my assertion.
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:54:04 +0300, Alex said:
> Well if the RFCs would just be set in stone already like Moses's 10 commandments
> and if the programmers would actually start writing code for v6
> and if the web site hosting servers would at least have dual stack
> enabled on them
> it would be great.
>
> But till then we just change a RFC here, band-aid IPv4 there and wait
> till everything reaches critical mass and comes crashing on our heads.

I find it interesting that you complain about a 15 year old protocol
not being set in stone, and cite that as a reason for no code getting
done.

But the solution is to take advantage of the fact that the 30 year old
predecessor isn't set in stone either...

(And there's no reason that programmers can't be writing code - RFC3542
came out in May 2003)
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:

> It would be nice to get an update from them regarding their IPv6 plans. Their
> IPv6 support page still says they will start deploying "3Q12" :(.

I've been trying to get some information from internal contacts, but so
far, no go.

jms
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
> Would you be less upset if there was IPv6 access and CPE based DS Lite

ds lite, nat in the core and cpe forklift. one of the worst mechanisms.

randy
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On Apr 7, 2013, at 00:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:
>
>> CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism through IPv6
>> At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
>> Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64
>
> CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).
>

True... But... Resources deploying/maintaining all of these keep IPv4-limping along technologies are resources taken away from IPv6 deployment.

> My point is that people seem to scoff at CGN. There is nothing stopping anyone putting in CGN for IPv4 (that has to be done to handle IPv4 address exhaustion), then giving dual stack for end users can be done at any time.
>

Not really...

> Face it, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. For basic Internet subscriptions the IPv4 connectivity is going to be behind CGN. IPv6 is a completely different problem that has little bearing on CGN or not for IPv4. DS-Lite is also CGN, it just happens to be done over IPv6 access. MAP is also CGN.
>

No, it really isn't. Sufficient IPv6 deployment at the content side would actually allow the subscriber side to be IPv4 or dual-stack for existing customers with new customers receiving IPv6-only. The missing piece there is actually the set-top coversion unit for IPv4-only devices. (Ideally, a dongle which can be plugged into the back of an IPv4-only device with an IPv6-only jack on the other side. Power could be done a number of ways, including POE (with optional injector), USB, or other.

> I'm ok with people complaining about lack of IPv6 deployment, but I don't understand people complaining about CGN. What's the alternative?

IPv6 deployment _IS_ the alternative. They are not orthogonal.

Owen
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN [ In reply to ]
On 4/6/2013 11:33 PM, Huasong Zhou wrote:
> I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either.
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, "Joshua Smith" <juicewvu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Smith
>> kD8HRX
>>
>> email/jabber: juicewvu@gmail.com
>> Phone: 304.237.9369(c)
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
if you are a business customer your modem is actually a business grade
NAT router. If they are using CGN(which doesn't make sense as i can
pull an ipv6 addy here on dhcp) it's either a misconfiguration or
something else going on.

1 2 3 4  View All