[136087] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Feb 1 02:13:01 2011
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:11:55 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13776@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/31/11 10:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> 3. Busting out 16 more /8s only delays the IPv4 endgame by about a
>> year.
>>
>> jms
>
> If used for general assignment, sure. But if used for what people have
> been begging for NAT444 middle-4 space. Well, that might work. Code
> update on the CPE is all it would take. The systems involved would
> never see it.
except when the tried to determine their external ip. and of course one
of the big applications for cgnat is mobile where the cpe are the end
systems...
There are negligible benefits as far as I can tell from the vantage
points of end systems to creating new private scope ipv4 regions at this
late date.
network operators see some but frankly each one comes with additional
support costs as does using rfc1918... the difference is we've got a lot
of experience with the latter even in nat444 envirnments.
>
>
>
