@LDS said in New commit and merge in FreeBSD source code of MAP-E:
@bmeeks said in New commit and merge in FreeBSD source code of MAP-E:
I will say that technology is definitely not needed in the U.S.
Is pfSense a US-only product? Just let us know, people outside US should switch then to a different product. That's different than saying that the adoption of the MAP protocols worldwide is still low.
It's also a bit ironic that one of the main adopters of MAP-T in Europe is US company Comcast (under the Sky brand) because in Europe there are no more IPv4 blocks available, and Comcast couldn't buy enough addresses at an acceptable price. MAP-E is used instead by French company Free/Iliad for the same reason.
@bmeeks said in New commit and merge in FreeBSD source code of MAP-E:
What does seem to be gaining ground here is the use of CGNAT for IPv4.
Which is an older and worse solution, albeit simpler, to the IPv4 exhaution problem, since it doesn't need CPE support. With MAP you get a global IPv6 prefix, and devices can use IPv6 to communicate over the IPv6 internet without issues, while only the IPv4 traffic needs to be tunneled/encapsulated in the MAP protocol. MAP port assignment is deterministic, and it's easier to assing a user the whole port range when needed. Once again, US ISPs look to lag behind. thanks to the lacking of real competition.
My gosh -- pull back the claws and teeth 🙂. I'm only a pfSense user expressing a view. I certainly do not pretend speak for Netgate.
Netgate (pfSense) is a U.S. company, and while I do not know, I would suspect the majority of their customer base to be in the U.S. But I don't know how much of a majority. I was simply saying that until a large enough number of your customers clamour for a particular feature, it is likley to remain on the back burner as this has.
With respect to IPv6 itself, I would love for it to be widespread around the world and actually supplant IPv4. But sadly, that appears at least for now to be quite a distance into the future. The move of cell phones to IPv6 with various IPv4 translations has taken the immediate pressure off the IPv4 address space. I think most smaller ISPs are happy to simply use CGNAT, and the vast majority of their customers neither care nor even know what that technology is. It's only the true computer geeks that disdain CGNAT.
I've tried to encourage my local ISP to provide IPv6 service. They have an assigned block of addresses. I don't know why they have not offered IPv6, but it could be just unfamiliarity with the technology and being more comfortable with IPv4 and CGNAT.