[162564] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Thu Apr 25 13:30:07 2013
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:29:45 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1304251306460.72441@brugal.local>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> 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?
I suppose that the way to frame this as: does it require the ISP to
carry flow statefulness in their network in places where they didn't
have to before. That to my mind is the big hit.
>
>> 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".)
>
I was going to say that NAT64 could be helpful, but thought better of it
because it may have its own set of issues. For example, are all of the resources
*within* the ISP v6 available? They may be a part of the problem as well as a
part of the solution too. I would think that just the prospect of having a less
expensive/complex infrastructure would be appealing as v6 adoption ramps up,
and gives ISP's an incentive to give the laggards an incentive.
Mike
