> Don’t blame your provider when they deploy CG-NAT, embrace IPv6 and global routing instead.
In theory this makes sense, but in practice my personal experience is that not a single wireline ISP I've ever seen deploy CG-NAT offered IPv6 service at all, nor did any of them indicate any intent or even interest when asked about it.
The mobile providers on the other hand have almost entirely gone IPv6-first, using 6>4 transition methods as the default form of v4 access which I fully support.
4>4 CG-NAT should never have existed and providers who deploy it without offering fully functional v6 should be shamed.
In theory this makes sense, but in practice my personal experience is that not a single wireline ISP I've ever seen deploy CG-NAT offered IPv6 service at all, nor did any of them indicate any intent or even interest when asked about it.
The mobile providers on the other hand have almost entirely gone IPv6-first, using 6>4 transition methods as the default form of v4 access which I fully support.
4>4 CG-NAT should never have existed and providers who deploy it without offering fully functional v6 should be shamed.