[LAC-TF] FW: [ipv6-wg] Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Nov 25 09:38:19 BRST 2016

Os reenvío un email de la lista de IPv6 de RIPE.

Dirigido a todos aquellos que creen que CGN es la solución y no hace falta desplegar IPv6 …

Este es un tema muy interesante y no es el primer país/regulador que “regula” el uso de CGN.

Incluso en algunos casos se prohíbe el uso de CGN si no va acompañado de despliegue de IPv6 y se limita su uso a 2 años, o algo así.

Me parece muy lógico que se limite el uso de CGN para no perjudicar la neutralidad y calidad de servicio. Si a un usuario le “quitan” puertos, obviamente eso ya no es IP, es un subconjunto de IP …, más aún cuando está demostrado que rompe muchas aplicaciones, impide que los usuarios publiquen servicios (cámaras web para vigilar tu casa, etc.).


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net>
Responder a: <marcoh at ripe.net>
Fecha: viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2016, 12:01
Para: IPv6 WG <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?

    [apologies for duplicates]
    Dear Colleagues,
    Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this.
    The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond.
    In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed.
    Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement:
    > Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend.
    Translation by me:
    > To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry” 
    So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful.
    As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6?
    Marco Hogewoning
    External Relations - RIPE NCC

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the LACTF mailing list