[162271] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Mon Apr 8 05:54:30 2013
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:54:14 +0100
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <FA803B67-47DB-4374-AED0-E0E9E5F5A2D3@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/8/13 9:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>
>> > * Owen DeLong
>> >
>>> >> The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
>>> >> is caused by it.
>> >
>> > In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
>> > ubiquitous IPv6 deployment ten years ago, there would be no IPv4
>> > depletion, and there would be no CGN. However, that ship has sailed long
>> > ago. You're using present tense where you should have used past.
>> >
> Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
> IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
> need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
> eliminated.
>
I though that they have done it last year around June 8th. ;-)
In fact, the need for CGN has been reduced if you count that 30-40% of
your traffic would go to those places. Although CGN is going to be a
necessary evil, deploying CGN without IPv6 would be a mistake IMHO.
/as
