IPv4 doesn't require NAT. But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the complaints about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead of open. These complaints are super rare.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6. > > Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006. > > Do customers ever complain about double NAT's? > > Mike > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > >> On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs. >> >> I completely agree. >> >> I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning, >> repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6. >> >> But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for >> the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse for >> not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4. >> >> > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing >> > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering symmetrical >> > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No >> > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who >> > even knew what it was. >> >> I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider. At >> least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know >> that it's on their future list without even being in planing / testing >> phase. >> >> > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans for it. >> >> .... >> >> >> >> -- >> Grant. . . . >> unix || die >> >>
