Re: CGNAT

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Feb 18, 2021, at 8:38 AM, Steve Saner <ssaner () ideatek com> wrote:
>
> We are starting to look at CGNAT solutions. The primary motivation at the moment is to extend current IPv4 resources, 
> but IPv6 migration is also a factor.

IPv6 Migration is generally not aided by CGNAT.

In general, the economics today still work out to make purchasing or leasing addresses more favorable than CGNAT.

It’s a bit dated by now, but still very relevant, see Lee Howard’s excellent research presented at the 2012 Rocky
mountain v6 task force meeting:

https://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TCO-of-CGN1.pdf 
<https://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TCO-of-CGN1.pdf>

Owen

> We've been in touch with A10. Just wondering if there are some alternative vendors that anyone would recommend. We'd 
> probably be looking at a solution to support 5k to 15k customers and bandwidth up to around 30-40 gig as a starting 
> point. A solution that is as transparent to user experience as possible is a priority.
>
> Thanks
>
> -- 
> Steve Saner
> ideatek HUMAN AT OUR VERY FIBER
> This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential 
> information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for 
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not, or believe you may not be, the intended 
> recipient, please advise the sender immediately by return email or by calling 620.543.5026 <tel:620.543.5026>. Then 
> take all steps necessary to permanently delete the email and all attachments from your computer system.