Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Michael Lambert <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris, On 14 Nov 2010, at 10:24, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: > It's a trade-off between slop in public address consumption by the CGNs and multiplication of services that need to be before the second nat (intercept comes to mind), and the desire to limit the impact of the request. > > If, say, we had a small block, and needed to re-use it 16 times, then I would need 16 intercept infrastructures, and, more importantly, 16 public address pools (one for each CGN cluster, assuming one cluster to NAT444 "network"). That means that each of the public pools will have to have buffer, vs. sharing the buffer over fewer CGN clusters. If I have been reading this thread correctly, it sounds as though one of the primary drivers for this request is the inadequacy of much residential CPE. How long is the typical replacement cycle for residential CPE (ie, how long could we expect this block to be "necessary")? Just to comment... I'm sure there are residential providers that are still deploying IPv6-unfriendly gear such as DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems even though DOCSIS 3.0 has been available for several years. I see no reason for the IETF to help mitigate operational complexities during transition for providers that are just now recognizing that IPv6 could be an "issue". Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkzgDT8ACgkQCa/+7y1tXDC2JgCePw6XLODAiVJrI9ODuXMGJQXA 85MAniB0qUp5nUUKeMt6cnUrLdIesPlv =1QzC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops