2degrees: Changes to IP Addresses (CGNAT)

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › 2degrees: Changes to IP Addresses (CGNAT)

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 32

1466 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314301 10-Sep-2019 14:23

cyril7:
richms:

What is the limits on connections on CGNAT per customer? Is it really low like some consumer routers? Will people with good routers find they are suddenly crippled to the number of open connections at one time?

Typically the CG part indicates that its slightly more capable than a home router.

Cyril

I would be quite enthused to see a CG-NAT setup utilizing Fritz!box's though. What a glorious nightmare

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

wratterus

1687 posts

Uber Geek

#2314302 10-Sep-2019 14:24

SirHumphreyAppleby:

wratterus:

I do think if someone signed up for a service that 2D said came with a public IP, and then 2D changed that, the end user is well within their rights to request a public IP for no cost, or to be able to end their contract with no break free as the service the customer signed up for changed.

Has 2degrees stated they won't do this?

Not at all and I didn't mean to make it sound like they had.

timmmay

20582 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314360 10-Sep-2019 16:30

2degrees have resolved my issue so I'm happy staying with them.

Moving to CG-Nat should free up massive numbers of IPs shouldn't it? That should fix the situation of running low?

phantomdb

583 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2314412 10-Sep-2019 17:39

Additionally if all Broadband accounts PRE CG-NAT are allocated a DHCP address can this be requested that the connection be Put in a DHCP Pool not the CG-NAT pool.

Im also Assuming the Monthly cost of the Broadband connection incurs an IP-Address cost as well being the customer is on a DHCP IP (This is assuming 2d have to pay for the ip address range allocated to them to then re-allocate to customers to recoup that cost. SO in Theory Line Cost $30 Ip Allocation $10 $20 Profit in a $60 example plan for a Dynamic DHCP)

If the above is true why would a customer then Pay another $10 to have a static ip if they are paying for an ip anyway, could that not be made a one off $45 admin fee to update the DHCP database to allocate it to that connection, As the connection is always on it will always have an ip address dynamic or not. (Think i hae worded that right)

[ SIGNATURE HERE ]

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2314413 10-Sep-2019 17:41

I'm curious to know whether CG-NAT will allow customers to get more than 1 static IPv4 address again. I've got the static IPv4 but another one could be useful.

Tinkerisk

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#2314416 10-Sep-2019 17:44

I wonder 'everybody' in NZ wants a static IP. You can comfortably live with a dynamic IP (which means shared with others but not at the same time) and DDNS but you can't with CG-NAT.

- NET: FTTH, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs, ipPBX
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2314434 10-Sep-2019 18:33

Tinkerisk:

I wonder 'everybody' in NZ wants a static IP. You can comfortably live with a dynamic IP (which means shared with others but not at the same time) and DDNS but you can't with CG-NAT.

_YOU_ (and some here) might not be able to live comfortably with CG-NAT, but virtually every BB user could. Don't project your requirements onto the other 99+% of users.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

SirHumphreyAppleby

2847 posts

Uber Geek

#2314440 10-Sep-2019 18:46

Talkiet:

_YOU_ (and some here) might not be able to live comfortably with CG-NAT, but virtually every BB user could. Don't project your requirements onto the other 99+% of users.

Everyone wants a working Internet connection. Silently introducing a breaking change, even if the vast majority won't notice, shows significant arrogance.

Hardly a surprise though. ISPs have been doing this sort of thing since the beginning, calling themselves Internet providers and deprioritising or blocking traffic that didn't meet their idea of how you should be using your connection.

Tinkerisk

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#2314442 10-Sep-2019 18:55

Talkiet:

Tinkerisk:

I wonder 'everybody' in NZ wants a static IP. You can comfortably live with a dynamic IP (which means shared with others but not at the same time) and DDNS but you can't with CG-NAT.

_YOU_ (and some here) might not be able to live comfortably with CG-NAT, but virtually every BB user could. Don't project your requirements onto the other 99+% of users.

Cheers - N

This is a geekzone, isn't it? It's up to you to restrict yourself being one of 99%+. I'm not.

Tracer

343 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2314507 10-Sep-2019 19:56

wratterus:

A few people I know who are on 2D called the helpdesk once the CGNAT switchover happened for them, and were supplied a public (static) for no cost.

I'll be a bit miffed if I get charged for my static IP then. Can you comment on that @2degreesCare?

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#2314525 10-Sep-2019 20:54

Tracer:

wratterus:

A few people I know who are on 2D called the helpdesk once the CGNAT switchover happened for them, and were supplied a public (static) for no cost.

I'll be a bit miffed if I get charged for my static IP then. Can you comment on that @2degreesCare?

You don't get the static IPv6 apparently, only the v4 address.

ObidiahSlope

260 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2314576 10-Sep-2019 21:34

I have been following the GGNAT thread with interest but while concerned it does not directly affect me.

I thought why worry, I'll just disable IPV4 because after this length of time most of the web sites I visit will have migrated to IPV6 by now

Shudder! It is still an almost completely IPV4 world out there.

Obsequious hypocrite

Tinkerisk

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#2314626 11-Sep-2019 02:54

Worth reading for people don't exactly know we are talking about:

https://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/the-ugly-side-of-ipv6-carrier-grade-nat/d/d-id/687459

and (more technically)

https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560

Kodiack

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2315126 11-Sep-2019 16:14

I'm on a static IP, but would the changes for this have affected routing at all? I'm in Wellington and have noticed that all of my traffic is now being routed via Auckland. This means that I have mates that have lower latency from Dunedin to Wellington than I do from Wellington to Wellington. My bandwidth has also taken a significant hit.

I've noticed that I also appear to be connecting to Google and Geekzone via IPv4 instead of IPv6. I still have a public IPv6 address and it is used for some sites, but not all. What gives?

Here's a result to a local speed test server:

Seeing similar results across all of them. Latency used to be 1-2 ms, downstream bandwidth used to be ~940 Mbps, and upstream bandwidth used to be 400+ Mbps.

Here's a couple of traceroutes to local servers:

Tracing route to speedtest.xtreme.net.nz [2401:7c00::30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms fritz.box [2406:e001:2:9e01:f2b0:14ff:fec0:7f6b]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 2406:e000:2801::30
3 10 ms 9 ms 31 ms 2001:7fa:11:6:0:5c67:0:1
4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms 2001:7fa:11:6:0:47e0:0:1
5 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms speedtest.xtreme.net.nz [2401:7c00::30]

Tracing route to fast-dog.wlg.acsdata.co.nz [114.110.33.94]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 65.7.69.111.static.snap.net.nz [111.69.7.65]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms snap1.ape.nzix.net [192.203.154.120]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms acsdata.ape.nzix.net [192.203.154.117]
5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms te0-0-0-1537.v4wlg0.acsdata.co.nz [103.239.11.1]
6 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms vlan1091.wlg0fw.acsdata.co.nz [202.21.136.178]
7 19 ms 18 ms 19 ms fast-dog.wlg.acsdata.co.nz [114.110.33.94]

All-in-all, very appalling results and a drastic decrease in service quality.

NickMack

962 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2315399 12-Sep-2019 08:48

Kodiack:

I'm on a static IP, but would the changes for this have affected routing at all? I'm in Wellington and have noticed that all of my traffic is now being routed via Auckland. This means that I have mates that have lower latency from Dunedin to Wellington than I do from Wellington to Wellington. My bandwidth has also taken a significant hit.

I've noticed that I also appear to be connecting to Google and Geekzone via IPv4 instead of IPv6. I still have a public IPv6 address and it is used for some sites, but not all. What gives?

Here's a result to a local speed test server:

Seeing similar results across all of them. Latency used to be 1-2 ms, downstream bandwidth used to be ~940 Mbps, and upstream bandwidth used to be 400+ Mbps.

Here's a couple of traceroutes to local servers:

Tracing route to speedtest.xtreme.net.nz [2401:7c00::30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms fritz.box [2406:e001:2:9e01:f2b0:14ff:fec0:7f6b]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 2406:e000:2801::30
3 10 ms 9 ms 31 ms 2001:7fa:11:6:0:5c67:0:1
4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms 2001:7fa:11:6:0:47e0:0:1
5 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms speedtest.xtreme.net.nz [2401:7c00::30]

Tracing route to fast-dog.wlg.acsdata.co.nz [114.110.33.94]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms fritz.box [192.168.178.1]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 65.7.69.111.static.snap.net.nz [111.69.7.65]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms snap1.ape.nzix.net [192.203.154.120]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms acsdata.ape.nzix.net [192.203.154.117]
5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms te0-0-0-1537.v4wlg0.acsdata.co.nz [103.239.11.1]
6 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms vlan1091.wlg0fw.acsdata.co.nz [202.21.136.178]
7 19 ms 18 ms 19 ms fast-dog.wlg.acsdata.co.nz [114.110.33.94]

All-in-all, very appalling results and a drastic decrease in service quality.

Hiya,

Suspect there's more than one issue here - The routing issue after investigation is due to the route being advertised by WIX peering exchange and based on the current configuration it's not hitting the route reflectors and being updated in the local table on the BNG (where subscribers terminate to). An Engineer is looking into this now.

The speed issue could be a number of things, my suggestion is you follow normal investigation and work through this link - https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=85&topicid=239862 as it's highly likely to be localised.

Nick

https://nick.mackechnie.co.nz | NZ ISP latency monitoring - https://smokeping.thenet.gen.nz

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 32