[125626] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 20 13:40:34 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100420172902.CB3BB2B2121@mx5.roble.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:38:17 -0700
To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The hardware cost of supporting LSN is trivial. The =
management/maintenance
>> costs and the customer experience -> dissatisfaction -> support calls =
->
>> employee costs will not be so trivial.
>=20
> Interesting opinion but not backed up by experience.
>=20
Since nobody has experience with LSN, that's a pretty easy statement to =
make.
However, given the tech. support costs of single-layer NAT and the =
number of
support calls I've seen from other less disruptive maintenance actions =
at various
providers where I have worked, I think that in terms of applicable =
related
experience available, yes, this is backed by experience.
> By contrast John Levine wrote:
>> My small telco-owned ISP NATs all of its DSL users, but you can get =
your
>> own IP on request. They have about 5000 users and I think they said I =
was
>> the eighth to ask for a private IP. I have to say that it took =
several
>> months to realize I was behind a NAT
>=20
> I'd bet good money John's experience is a better predictor of what =
will
> begin occurring when the supply of IPv4 addresses runs low. Then as =
now
> few consumers are likely to notice or care.
>=20
ROFL... John has already made it clear that his usage profile is =
particularly
NAT friendly compared to the average user.
> Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying =
the
> transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both =
protocols.
> Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored.
>=20
Uh, no. Interesting how the wilful ignorance around NAT and IPv6
is both delaying IPv6 transition and being used as an excuse to make
things even worse for customers in the future.
> That said the underlying issue is still about choice. We (i.e., the
> IETF) should be giving consumers the _option_ of NAT in IPv6 so they
> aren't required to use it in IPv4.
>=20
I guess that depends on whose choice you are interested in preserving.
Owen
