BBC News - 'Fresh proposals' planned over cyber-monitoring

[Roland Perry]

In article <240765A6-2F22-424A-869E-0A8A22977670 at batten.eu.org>, Ian 
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>>> BT said it is trialling CGNAT in a bid to make the most efficient use of existing "IPv4 internet address", which are currently "running
>>>out", before new "IPv6 addresses become widely adopted". Doing so will enable fixed-line internet customers to stay connected, it said.
>>
>> God forbid they roll out IPv6 instead :(
>
>Of course, they'd need a CGNAT (I've never really understood how that
>differs from plain NAT)

It doesn't differ, other than being "industrial grade". And obviously 
being in the carrier's network rather than beyond their end-point and in 
the user's network. But these are trivial differences.

>solution there, because most of the Intertubes aren't accessible with
>pure IPv6.

That's an entirely separate matter, and one addressed by other kludgy 
technologies disjoint from NAT such as Teredo.

Although one of them (not very popular I think) is called NAT-TP.

Basically, the people who specified IPv6 screwed up, big time, in not 
making it backwards compatible. They've got all sorts of excuses, that 
only geeks who understand products, but not product management, would 
relate to.

As ZDNet reported in 2010: "I can't do better than to quote, Leslie 
Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer for the Internet Society, who 
admitted at a June 2009 meeting that "IPv6's lack of real backwards 
compatibility for IPv4 was [its] single critical failure."

One of the reasons I like Leslie is that she tells things the way they 
are.
-- 
Roland Perry