The funnest part is telling DMCA/RIAA that an IP address means nothing, not without a port and exact time, someitmes down to a 10 minute mark. CGNAT + NAT64/464 xlat using the fewest ipv4s as possible(as suggested) also requires a large database to retain all records of every port and ipv4 address connected with every new connection.
On 23 January 2018 at 09:56, Ryan Gard <ryang...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW+2117,+Australia&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 <tel:%2B61%202%209871%204742> >> INTERNET: >> >> ma...@isc.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > > -- > Ryan Gard >
