[125528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Brockway)
Mon Apr 19 11:05:12 2010
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:08:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <BDACE557-46FB-40D2-8DDA-819C5397BFED@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'm looking at both, and, frankly, LSN (large scale NAT) is not as
> trivial as you think. I actually talk to and work with some of these
> very large providers on a regular basis. None of them is looking forward
> to deploying LSN with anything but dread. The support issues, user
> experience, CALEA problems, and other issues with LSN are huge. None of
> them that I am aware of are considering using lSN to free up addresses
> to hand over to hosting providers.
Well said.
I've been pondering LSN lately. I think people have haven't been involved
in large scale service changes or migrations can't appreciate just how
many unanticipated edge cases can appear and blindside a project.
I expect that deploying IPv6 will be far less problematic than deploying
LSN for a large ISP.
Rob
--
Email: robert@timetraveller.org
IRC: Solver
Web: http://www.practicalsysadmin.com
Open Source: The revolution that silently changed the world
