I can predict the response from the teen dens of the world! What does CGN mean .. Can't Get Nothing!
Christian On 9 Sep 2011, at 17:06, Alexander Harrowell wrote: > On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean- > francois.tremblay...@videotron.com said: >> >>> A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources, >>> it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide >>> a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes. >>> > > The actual problem here is that everyone assumes it'll be donkey's years > before every last web server in the world is on IPv6. > > If you're a CDN, though, you can solve this problem for your own network > right now by deploying IPv6! Akamai says that you need 650 AS to cover > 90% of Internet traffic. I propose that effort getting content networks > to go dual stack is better used than effort used to work around NAT444. > > Further, if making your hosting network IPv6 is hard, the answer is > surely to give the job to a CDN operator with v6 clue. I actually rather > think CDNs are an important way of getting content onto the IPv6 > Internet. > > In my view CDNing (and its sister, application acceleration) is so > important to delivering the heavy video and complex web apps that > dominate the modern Internet that this should be a killer. > > Still, breaking the BBC, Hulu, Level(3), Akamai, Limelight, and Google's > video services will probably reduce your transit and backhaul bills > significantly. Can't say it'll help with customer retention. > > >>> For this to work, the CGN users would probably have a different >>> set of DNS servers (arguably also with a private/non-routed >>> leg) or some other way to differentiate these CGN clients. Lots >>> of fun in the future debugging that. >> >> Especially once you have 10 or 15 CDNs doing this, all of which have > different >> rules of engagement. "Akamai requires us to do X, Hulu wants Y, Foobar > wants Y >> and specifically NOT-X..." ;) >> >> And then Cogent will get into another peering spat and.... :) >> >> >> > > -- > The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail > to lists complaining about them
