[144358] in North American Network Operators' Group
CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotro)
Fri Sep 9 11:11:18 2011
In-Reply-To: <4E695203.50009@lcrcomputer.net>
To: lyle@lcrcomputer.net
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:09:38 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> And these 'perceived' routing issues won't be noticed nor are they
> important to CDN's?
> I know what my job is, but that may not matter to the CDN's. Reading
> this thread, I wanted to mention another problem that I feel has an
> effect on this issue.
> Lyle
A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources,
it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide
a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes.
For this to work, the CGN users would probably have a different
set of DNS servers (arguably also with a private/non-routed
leg) or some other way to differentiate these CGN clients. Lots
of fun in the future debugging that.
/JF
