[162663] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Apr 29 13:41:29 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <517EADE3.1010401@brightok.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:40:26 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing =
IPv4 demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes =
that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto =
these addresses.=20
>=20
> The residential currently eats up a majority of my addresses, so the =
more I can recover from them for business customers, the better.
>=20
Point is that your business customers probably won't be so CGN tolerant =
and growth there will reduce the ability to multiply residential =
customers on recovered addresses.
>> Telling a customer to reboot a router (or a single host) isn't all =
that bad. After all, they probably did that at least 5 times at the =
behest of your front-line support folks before they reached someone that =
understood the problem anyway. (At least that's been my general =
experience with most residential providers).=20
>=20
> Perhaps my viewpoint is different, given that I only have two lines of =
support folk, and talking to me is a rarity for a customer. :)
>=20
I was speaking from the customer perspective. In addition to working for =
an ISP, I'm also a customer of multiple residential providers and have =
experience with a number of former providers as well.
>> Or 7, as required by CALEA. The problem with draft-donely is that =
customers that exceed the expected number of ports run into issues (or =
additional logging required), so you either don't get the best =
efficiency out of your addresses, or you get problems in other ways. =
Owen=20
>=20
> That problem was mentioned on v6ops, and the general lesson that I =
took from it is to not exceed 16:1 ratio if it can be helped. 4k ports =
should be fine. 64:1 is probably sustainable for a lot of customers with =
1k ports, but there will be a percentage that will have issues. Luckily, =
most of those with issues are usually running services that require =
opt-out anyways.
Hmmm=85 Thinking just about my active usage, 4k ports divvied up among =
the 15 or so IP-speaking hosts in my house works out to just under 300 =
ports per host.
That's probably sufficient for relatively light usage. It would probably =
suck pretty bad on days when I'm doing a lot.
> If I calculate correctly, even at 20% of my residential(70% of total =
allocated) on CGN, I'm regaining 18% of my residential assignments with =
a 16:1 ratio. I could conservatively figure a years worth of my usual =
allocation has been saved. If I can push better numbers, I'll get more =
years.
What does the CGN cost you per subscriber (equipment, additional staff, =
etc.?)
Owen
