The biggest problems that start to run with cases of CGN or any other v4 aggregation method are services that still continue to treat single IP addresses as a single entity (a certain event ticket vendor comes to mind). Until these organizations either start opening a line of communications with ISPs, changing their methodology when handling traffic from v4 addresses, and/or deploying v6, the song and dance for v4 addressing will continue.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > > > From: Michael Crapse <mich...@wi-fiber.io> > Date: Monday, January 22, 2018 at 5:27 PM > To: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> > Cc: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Leasing /22 > > > Customers on ps4s and xboxes will hate you. They will always get > "strict" nat, > > and it's your fault not mega corporation X's fault for not releasing > IPv4s > > Maybe. You don’t have to configure strict NAT on your translator (DS-Lite’s > pretty good at this, and although I’m a few weeks away from testing > consoles > through 464xlat and MAP, they should work, too). And their NAT workarounds > are pretty sophisticated now. > > There comes a point when winning your customers’ love isn’t profitable. I > don’t know if that point is $16/address for you, or $30, or $40, or $90. > Maybe it varies, depending on the customer. > > That’s why I suggested in “TCO of CGN”[1] that everyone figure out for > themselves how much money you might lose to unhappy customers via CGN, and > compare it to how much addresses cost, and at what price point you might > turn around and sell addresses. My findings then, based on assumptions that > almost certainly are not true for any particular network, and which may > have > changed, suggest that buying addresses still makes sense. > > > Lee > > [1] http://ipv6.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2025 > > > > > > On 22 January 2018 at 15:23, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > >> Add to that CGN from RFC 6598 addresses (100.64/10) + IPv6 though that > >> reaches its limit at ~4M customers. > >> > >> Native IPv4 with a GUA to customers is essentially unavailable for new > >> ISPs. It’s a matter of picking which flavour of NAT you and your > >> customers are going to use. The sooner ALL ISP’s provide IPv6 to their > >> customers the sooner we restore delivering the Internet to the > customers. > >> > >> Mark > >> > >>> > On 23 Jan 2018, at 9:05 am, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > IPv6 still solves your problem if you add any of NAT64, DS-Lite, > 464xlat, > >>> > MAP-T, MAP-E. > >>> > > >>> > Yes, you’re NATing, but only the traffic to places like Hulu, and it > will > >>> > decrease over time. And while you need addresses for the outside of > the > >>> > translator, you don’t need as many (or to get more as frequently). > >>> > > >>> > Lee > >>> > > >>> > On 1/20/18, 10:20 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett" > >>> > <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > >>> > > >>>> >> It's not really scraping the bottom of the barrel if your > customers are > >>>> >> using Hulu and they're complaining because Hulu isn't responsive to > >>>> >> fixing their problems (geo-location, v6, etc.). > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ----- > >>>> >> Mike Hammett > >>>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions > >>>> >> http://www.ics-il.com > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Midwest-IX > >>>> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com > >>>> >> > >>>> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> >> > >>>> >> From: "Ca By" <cb.li...@gmail.com> > >>>> >> To: "Michael Crapse" <mich...@wi-fiber.io> > >>>> >> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> > >>>> >> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 9:54:23 PM > >>>> >> Subject: Re: Leasing /22 > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:48 PM Michael Crapse < > mich...@wi-fiber.io> > >>>> >> wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>>> >>> Has Hulu, or a thousand other content distributors considered > IPv6? > >>>>> >>> Because > >>>>> >>> you can't even tunnel to ipv4 without setting off VPN alarms with > >>>>> HULU. > >>>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Hulu? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel of content > providers that > >>>> >> dont use ipv6 these days. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Netflix and Youtube support v6 ... and thousand of others > (thousands > >>>> just > >>>> >> on Cloudflare where v6 is default on) > >>>> >> > >>>> >> About 80% of my traffic is native e2e v6, mostly google / youtube > / fb / > >>>> >> netflix / apple / amazon — but your mix may vary. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> On 19 January 2018 at 18:38, Andrew Kirch <trel...@trelane.net> > wrote: > >>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ryan Gard <ryang...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> We're on the hunt yet again for an additional /22 to lease, > and > are > >>>>>>> >>>>> wondering what the best options are out there? > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> Our usual suspects that we've reached out to in the past > seem to > be > >>>>> >>> plum > >>>>>>> >>>>> out... Any recommendations? > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> -- > >>>>>>> >>>>> Ryan Gard > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> Have you considered IPv6? > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Andrews, ISC > >> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 <tel:%2B61%202%209871%204742> > INTERNET: > >> ma...@isc.org > >> > > > > > -- Ryan Gard
