nanog mailing list archives
RE: CGNAT
From: "nanog () jima us" <nanog () jima us>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:44:52 +0000
While I don't doubt the accuracy of Lee's presentation at the time, at least two base factors have changed since then: - Greater deployment of IPv6 content (necessitating less CGN capacity per user) - Increased price of Legacy IP space on the secondary market (changing the formula) -- strictly speaking, this presentation was still in "primary market" era for LACNIC/ARIN/AFRINIC IPv6 migration is not generally aided by CGNAT, but CGNAT deployment is generally aided by IPv6 deployment; to reiterate the earlier point, any ISPs deploying CGNAT without first deploying IPv6 are burning cash. - Jima From: NANOG On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 16:59 To: Steve Saner Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: CGNAT On Feb 18, 2021, at 8:38 AM, Steve Saner 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 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 tel:620.543.5026. Then take all steps necessary to permanently delete the email and all attachments from your computer system.
Current thread:
- CGNAT Steve Saner (Feb 19)
- Re: CGNAT Owen DeLong (Feb 21)
- RE: CGNAT nanog () jima us (Feb 22)
- Re: CGNAT Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 23)
- Re: CGNAT JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Feb 23)
- DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Douglas Fischer (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Ca By (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Douglas Fischer (Feb 24)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods Mark Andrews (Feb 24)
- RE: CGNAT nanog () jima us (Feb 22)
- Re: DualStack (CGNAT) vs Other Transition methods JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Feb 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: CGNAT JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Feb 19)