Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> wrote:

> On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4 demand that will be coming from your business 
> > customers and assumes that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto these addresses. 
>
> The residential currently eats up a majority of my addresses, so the more I can recover from them for business 
> customers, the better.

Point is that your business customers probably won't be so CGN tolerant and growth there will reduce the ability to 
multiply residential customers on recovered addresses.

> > Telling a customer to reboot a router (or a single host) isn't all that bad. After all, they probably did that at 
> > least 5 times at the behest of your front-line support folks before they reached someone that understood the problem 
> > anyway. (At least that's been my general experience with most residential providers). 
>
> Perhaps my viewpoint is different, given that I only have two lines of support folk, and talking to me is a rarity 
> for a customer. :)

I was speaking from the customer perspective. In addition to working for an ISP, I'm also a customer of multiple 
residential providers and have experience with a number of former providers as well.

> > Or 7, as required by CALEA. The problem with draft-donely is that customers that exceed the expected number of ports 
> > run into issues (or additional logging required), so you either don't get the best efficiency out of your addresses, 
> > or you get problems in other ways. Owen 
>
> That problem was mentioned on v6ops, and the general lesson that I took from it is to not exceed 16:1 ratio if it can 
> be helped. 4k ports should be fine. 64:1 is probably sustainable for a lot of customers with 1k ports, but there will 
> be a percentage that will have issues. Luckily, most of those with issues are usually running services that require 
> opt-out anyways.

Hmmm… Thinking just about my active usage, 4k ports divvied up among the 15 or so IP-speaking hosts in my house works 
out to just under 300 ports per host.

That's probably sufficient for relatively light usage. It would probably suck pretty bad on days when I'm doing a lot.

> If I calculate correctly, even at 20% of my residential(70% of total allocated) on CGN, I'm regaining 18% of my 
> residential assignments with a 16:1 ratio. I could conservatively figure a years worth of my usual allocation has 
> been saved. If I can push better numbers, I'll get more years.

What does the CGN cost you per subscriber (equipment, additional staff, etc.?)

Owen