On 25/Aug/20 21:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> > > A few years ago, I was thinking that the cost of the “replacement” of > the CPE was too high for most of the operators. Not because the CPE > itself, but the logistics or actually replacing it. > Which makes (or made) the case for vCPE. You don't need to truck-roll. All the smarts happen in the data centre. > > > But since a few years, when you put the cost of CGN + IPv4 addresses > (or actually just buying “more” IPv4 addresses and offering dual-stack > without CGN – because the CGN will require you to swap the IPv4 pools > just because Sony PSN is continuously blacklisting you) versus the > lower number of IPv4 addresses needed for 464XLAT and lower number of > NAT64 boxes, in most cases, it compensates for the cost of replacing > the CPEs, and you have additional marketing advantages that you can > sell and even charge for them, such as “Now we give you a box with > Gigabit ports, greener for the planet - lower power consumption, > better WiFi, better security, ready for the future with IPv6, IPv6 is > faster with your social networks, youtube and many websites, etc., etc.) > Agreed. Whether you go vCPE and upgrade all your customers in one go without truck-rolling, or if you actually truck-roll and replace the CPE with those which support CLAT, it makes technical and commercial sense vs. having to deal with IPv4 and CGN's. Mark.
