[144360] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Fri Sep 9 12:07:38 2011
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:06:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <31013.1315581935@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart1618449.BGYyMu3IdN
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-
=46rancois.TremblayING@videotron.com said:
>=20
> > A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources,=20
> > it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide=20
> > a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes.=20
> >=20
The actual problem here is that everyone assumes it'll be donkey's years=20
before every last web server in the world is on IPv6.
If you're a CDN, though, you can solve this problem for your own network=20
right now by deploying IPv6! Akamai says that you need 650 AS to cover=20
90% of Internet traffic. I propose that effort getting content networks=20
to go dual stack is better used than effort used to work around NAT444.
=46urther, if making your hosting network IPv6 is hard, the answer is=20
surely to give the job to a CDN operator with v6 clue. I actually rather=20
think CDNs are an important way of getting content onto the IPv6=20
Internet.
In my view CDNing (and its sister, application acceleration) is so=20
important to delivering the heavy video and complex web apps that=20
dominate the modern Internet that this should be a killer.=20
Still, breaking the BBC, Hulu, Level(3), Akamai, Limelight, and Google's=20
video services will probably reduce your transit and backhaul bills=20
significantly. Can't say it'll help with customer retention.
> > For this to work, the CGN users would probably have a different=20
> > set of DNS servers (arguably also with a private/non-routed
> > leg) or some other way to differentiate these CGN clients. Lots=20
> > of fun in the future debugging that.
>=20
> Especially once you have 10 or 15 CDNs doing this, all of which have=20
different
> rules of engagement. "Akamai requires us to do X, Hulu wants Y, Foobar=20
wants Y
> and specifically NOT-X..." ;)
>=20
> And then Cogent will get into another peering spat and.... :)
>=20
>=20
>=20
=2D-=20
The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail=20
to lists complaining about them
--nextPart1618449.BGYyMu3IdN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk5qOZ4ACgkQ0c69vkueJcTmwACfSwK3AEz11Buolf1KSdAwj0Sm
6dwAn0xBmf95+eQ9e4l4e8XxcqKa/OqF
=efY5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1618449.BGYyMu3IdN--
