Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin > <muren...@gmail.com> wrote: >> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more >> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their >> clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application >> developers. > > Correct. The most significant challenges to CGN are legal compliance > issues. NAT complicates the process of determining who did what using > the public IP at this timestamp. CGN developers have designed some > novel solutions to that problem, such as dedicating port ranges to > particular interior addresses and logging the range once instead of > trying to log every connection. So, don't expect it to be a show > stopper for long. > > On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for > more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not > different. > Yes it is... In the enterprise, whatever the security team decides isn't supposed to be supported on the enterprise LAN, the end-users just sort of have to accept. In the residential ISP world, unless every ISP in a given service area degrades all of their customers in the exact same way, you have a very different situation. >> CGN breaks the internet, but it doesn't break non-p2p VoIP at all whatsoever. > > Also correct. The primary impacts from CGN are folks who want to host > a game server, folks running bit torrent and folks who want to use > Skype. Skype's not stupid and voip relays are easy so after minor > growing pains that'll cease to be an issue too. > > Make opting out of CGN simple and cheap. The relatively few folks who > would be impacted will opt out with no particular animus towards you > and you'll recover the IP addresses you had dedicated to the rest. An interesting theory, but I don't think it will be so few. Owen
