[144359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Sep 9 11:27:26 2011
To: Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT."
<OF6F720EEF.5A0A7F90-ON85257906.00515568-85257906.005347E0@videotron.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:25:35 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1315581935_28234P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com said:
> 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.
Especially once you have 10 or 15 CDNs doing this, all of which have different
rules of engagement. "Akamai requires us to do X, Hulu wants Y, Foobar wants Y
and specifically NOT-X..." ;)
And then Cogent will get into another peering spat and.... :)
--==_Exmh_1315581935_28234P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOai/vcC3lWbTT17ARAgIkAJsFURI+SlxQPol1I7I8kmK9vIyeUwCg2Akw
4EV+oESQZy6X72/J2CzmgfA=
=XKtT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1315581935_28234P--
