[162317] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Apr 8 20:51:22 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5162DB0A.2000908@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:49:35 -0700
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 8, 2013, at 07:58 , joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
>>> address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away =
the
>>> need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
>>=20
>> The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the =
point that 1 IPv4 Address per customer won't accommodate user bases.
>>=20
> That happened a long time ago. I realize the people like to think of =
wireless providers as different, they really aren't. A big chuck of our =
mobile gaming customers come to us via carrier operated nat translators. =
Some of them now come to us via ipv6, most do not.
>> The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There =
are ISP layouts that use bridging instead of CPE routers (which was a =
long term design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). =
CGN will handle the IPv4 issues in this setup just fine. Then there are =
those who have already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in a =
router configuration which does not have MAP support. Given the variety =
of CPE vendors that end up getting deployed over a longer period of =
time, it is easier and more cost effective to deploy CGN than try and =
replace all the CPEs.
>>=20
>> Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment =
costs) for 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly doesn't seem so =
costly.
>>=20
>> The only way I see it justifiable is if you haven't had IPv6 =
deployment in mind yet and you are having to replace every CPE for IPv6 =
support anyways, you might go with a MAPS/IPv6 aware CPE which the =
customer pays for if they wish IPv6 connectivity(or during whatever slow =
trickle replacement methods you utilize). While waiting for the slow =
rollout, CGN would be an interim cost that would be acceptable. I'm not =
sure there is a reason for MAPS if you've already deployed CGN, though.
>>=20
>> I am sure Verizon did a lot of cost analysis.
>>=20
>> Jack
>>=20
>=20
There is actually a key difference. In the US, at least, everyone is =
used to the cellular networks mostly sucking.
They are willing to put up with far more degraded service over wireless =
than they will tolerate on a wired connection.
You and I and everyone else on this list realize that this is complete =
BS, but the majority of the general public tolerates it, so it persists.
Owen
