On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, "Joe Maimon" <jmai...@ttec.com> wrote:
> > >Lee Howard wrote: > >> If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN, >> let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports >> apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could >> well imagine that increasing to 50:1). That means that for every user >>you >> NAT, you get 1/10 of an address. >> Example: An 10,000-user ISP is growing at 10% annually. They have >>1,000 >> addresses left, so they implement CGN. You say to assuming 90% of them >> can be NATted, so next year, 100 get a unique IPv4 address, the other >>900 >> share 90 addresses. At 190 addresses per year, CGN bought you five >>years. >> >> I think your 90% is high. If it's 70%, you burn 370 per year. >> That doesn't include the fact the increased support costs, or alienated >> customer cancellations, or any of the stuff I talked about in TCO of >>CGN. >> >> Lee > >2-5 years from a currently one year supply? >Factor in the current base and growth for at least another decade is >assured. >If it works for the new subscribers, it will work for the existing ones. It is difficult to change an existing customer's service. Good luck. > >Does anybody doubt that successful CGN deployment easily translates into >many years more of v4? Yes, I doubt it. Although if you define "successful" as "many more years of IPv4" my doubts vanish solipsistically. >We understand that there are hosts of theoretical and practical impacts. >What we do not yet know is how the public and providers at large will >react or adapt to these impacts. > >If just the right balance of CGN negativity and resulting v6 adoption is >the result, then we will all muddle through more or less ok. > >Otherwise we will be seeing either frantic v6 migration everywhere or >even slower pace then what we have now. Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Possible frantic migration. These sound bad to me. Lee > >Joe >
