[125612] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Tue Apr 20 10:39:33 2010
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:38:45 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100420225314.7dcd4da4@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Mark Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:57:04 -0700
> Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Pushing functions as closer to the edge of the network usually makes
> them easier to scale and more robust and resilient to failure.
> There might be more chance of failure, but there is less consequence.
>
> Specific to CGN/LSN, I think the best idea is that if we can't have
> a 1 to 1 relationship between subscriber and global IPv4 address (in
> the ISP network that is), the next best thing is to try to keep as
> close to that as possible e.g. if you share a single IPv4 address
> between two customers, you've halved your IPv4 addressing
> requirements / doubled your growth opportunity, and allowed for e.g.
> 32K TCP or UDP ports for each of those customers.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
But if you free up large swaths you might actually be generating
additional revenue opportunity instead of only growth opportunity.
