On 9/8/11 08:49 , Lyle Giese wrote: > Can we really push an IPv6 agenda for CDN's when IPv6 routing at high > backend levels is still not complete? I certainly don't have the > 'clout' to push that, but full routing between Cogent and HE needs to be > fixed.
It's your job to run your network such that you have connectivity to the destinations your customers want to reach not Cogent's or HE's... > Lyle Giese > LCR Computer Services, Inc. > > On 09/08/11 10:04, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: >> I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that >> the edge of Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is >> not just an ISP problem but one where content providers and services >> that is the users need to get from here to there in good order. >> >> So >> >> What can users do to encourage ISPs to deploy v6 to them? >> What can users do to ease the pain in reaching IPv4 only sites once >> they are on IPv6 tails? >> >> Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and not >> do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from >> a CGN? >> and less technically but relevant I think is to ask about cost? who pays? >> >> >> Christian >> >> On 8 Sep 2011, at 15:02, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> >>> On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter"<leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] >>>>> Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22 >>>>> To: Leigh Porter >>>>> Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG >>>>> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? >>>>> >>>>>> Considering that offices, schools etc regularly have far more than 10 >>>>> users per IP, I think this limit is a little low. I've happily had >>>>> around 300 per public IP address on a large WiFi network, granted >>>>> these >>>>> are all different kinds of users, it is just something that >>>>> operational >>>>> experience will have to demonstrate. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, but, you are counting individual users whereas at the NAT444 >>>>> level, what's really being counted is end-customer sites not >>>>> individual >>>>> users, so the term >>>>> "users" is a bit misleading in the context. A given end-customer site >>>>> may be from 1 to 50 or more individual users. >>>> >>>> Indeed, my users are using LTE dongles mostly so I expect they will be >>> single users. At the moment on the WiMAX network I see around 35 >>> sessions >>> from a WiMAX modem on average rising to about 50 at peak times. These >>> are a >>> combination of individual users and "home modems". >>>> >>>> We had some older modems that had integrated NAT that was broken and >>> locked up the modem at 200 sessions. Then some old base station software >>> died at about 10K sessions. So we monitor these things now.. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I would love to avoid NAT444, I do not see a viable way around it at >>>>> the moment. Unless the Department of Work and Pensions release >>>>> their /8 >>>>> that is ;-) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The best mitigation really is to get IPv6 deployed as rapidly and >>>>> widely as possible. The more stuff can go native IPv6, the less >>>>> depends >>>>> on fragile NAT444. >>>> >>>> Absolutely. Even things like google maps, if that can be dumped on v6, >>> it'll save a load of sessions from people. The sooner services such as >>> Microsoft Update turn on v6 the better as well. I would also like the >>> CDNs >>> to be able to deliver content in v6 (even if the main page is v4) which >>> again will reduce the traffic that has to traverse any NAT. >>>> >>>> Soon, I think content providers (and providers of other services on the >>> 'net) will roll v6 because of the performance increase as v6 will not >>> have >>> to traverse all this NAT and be subject to session limits, timeouts and >>> such. >>>> >>> >>> What do you mean by performance increase? If performance equals >>> latency, v4 >>> will win for a long while still. Cgn does not add measurable latency. >>> >>> Cb >>>> -- >>>> Leigh >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>> >> >> > >
