> There is also a significant set of use cases that currently work better, or at least more easily, with NAT.
> The most common example is small branch sites with dual ISP uplinks. There are a vast number of these sites deployed using two small provider-assigned (PA) NAT pools. This setup is widely understood, simple to implement, and reliable.
> Moving these sites to IPv6 via BGP is often not feasible. Many ISP circuits do not support BGP, and the teams operating these sites lack the time to navigate that complexity. Furthermore, other IPv6 dual-homing options often don't align with enterprise requirements or expected complexity (or really simplicity) levels.
> In my view, this is a core reason why IPv6 adoption remains low in the enterprise space: it requires fundamental paradigm shifts rather than a simple protocol update.
so true
> The most common example is small branch sites with dual ISP uplinks. There are a vast number of these sites deployed using two small provider-assigned (PA) NAT pools. This setup is widely understood, simple to implement, and reliable.
> Moving these sites to IPv6 via BGP is often not feasible. Many ISP circuits do not support BGP, and the teams operating these sites lack the time to navigate that complexity. Furthermore, other IPv6 dual-homing options often don't align with enterprise requirements or expected complexity (or really simplicity) levels.
> In my view, this is a core reason why IPv6 adoption remains low in the enterprise space: it requires fundamental paradigm shifts rather than a simple protocol update.
so true
