From: merlyn@dork.geeks.org   
      
   Bill Horne  writes:   
   >I had never heard of "Cee-Gee-NAT" until Zito Media took over the   
   >local Cable TV & Internet provider: I was surprised that anyone would   
   >want to implement any more "NAT" solutions, especially with IPv4 IP   
   >addresses going for princely sums while IPv6 addresses are practically   
   >free.   
      
   But thats exactly why ISPs implement Carrier Grade NAT, because the   
   new guard that has formed (after the old guard let everything drop and   
   rot) don't have the IPv4 resources needed to serve every customer, and   
   they've done that math that buying a big box to do CGNAT and hide   
   everybody behind the tiny pool of IPv4 addresses they have is cheaper   
   than buying enough IPv4 addresses to handle their customer needs in   
   the traditional sense (well, at least since the rise of NAT and hiding   
   all onprem networks behind the single IP NAT gateway came about, not   
   the original intent of the internet of pure peer-to-peer network from   
   any node to any node, because only IPv6 can make that model work   
   again.   
      
   If they can provide "good enough" service to 99% of the customers,   
   thats all they are going to do. They aren't trying to serve all   
   customers with all services that they expect, or at least they may   
   fool themselves that nobody needs all services, just the limited   
   set that their big CGNAT box can do.   
      
   --   
   Doug McIntyre   
   doug@themcintyres.us   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)