[162563] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Ross)
Thu Apr 25 13:10:51 2013
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <51794ABF.5040209@mtcc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
> So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
> will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
> One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
> to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
> the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is
> ultimately
> a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses
> penalty:
> make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)
Hm, sounds like NAT64 or MAP to me (although, honestly, we may end up
making MAP "too good".)
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
