nanog mailing list archives
Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?)
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:06:37 +0100
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-
Francois.TremblayING () videotron com said:
A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources, it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes.
The actual problem here is that everyone assumes it'll be donkey's years before every last web server in the world is on IPv6. If you're a CDN, though, you can solve this problem for your own network right now by deploying IPv6! Akamai says that you need 650 AS to cover 90% of Internet traffic. I propose that effort getting content networks to go dual stack is better used than effort used to work around NAT444. Further, if making your hosting network IPv6 is hard, the answer is surely to give the job to a CDN operator with v6 clue. I actually rather think CDNs are an important way of getting content onto the IPv6 Internet. In my view CDNing (and its sister, application acceleration) is so important to delivering the heavy video and complex web apps that dominate the modern Internet that this should be a killer. Still, breaking the BBC, Hulu, Level(3), Akamai, Limelight, and Google's video services will probably reduce your transit and backhaul bills significantly. Can't say it'll help with customer retention.
For this to work, the CGN users would probably have a different set of DNS servers (arguably also with a private/non-routed leg) or some other way to differentiate these CGN clients. Lots of fun in the future debugging that.Especially once you have 10 or 15 CDNs doing this, all of which have
different
rules of engagement. "Akamai requires us to do X, Hulu wants Y, Foobar
wants Y
and specifically NOT-X..." ;) And then Cogent will get into another peering spat and.... :)
-- The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail to lists complaining about them
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: NAT444 or ?, (continued)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 07)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Leigh Porter (Sep 08)
- RE: NAT444 or ? Cameron Byrne (Sep 08)
- what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Lyle Giese (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Randy Bush (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Joel jaeggli (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Lyle Giese (Sep 08)
- CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Alexander Harrowell (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 09)
- Re: CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?) Dobbins, Roland (Sep 09)
- RE: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 08)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Christian de Larrinaga (Sep 09)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 13)
- RE: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Dan Wing (Sep 13)
- Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ? Owen DeLong (Sep 14)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Mark Tinka (Sep 10)
- Re: NAT444 or ? Jean-Francois . TremblayING (Sep 07)
- Re: NAT444 or ? David Israel (Sep 07)