nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Max Tulyev <maxtul () netassist ua>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 22:13:00 +0200
Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address space. Isn't it?
22.10.21 20:19, Mark Tinka пише:
On 10/22/21 18:08, tim () pelican org wrote:I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will reduce costs. CGNAT boxes cost money, operating them costs money, dealing with the support fallout from them costs money. Especially in the residential space, where essentially if the customer calls you, ever, you just blew years' worth of margin.The problem is accurately modelling cost reduction using native IPv6 in lieu of CG-NAT is hard when the folk that need convincing are the CFO's.They are more used to "spend 1 to get 2". Convincing them to "save 2 by spending 1" - not as easy as one may think.Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Max Tulyev (Nov 03)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 26)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Jose Luis Rodriguez (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mike Hammett (Nov 26)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Michael Thomas (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Ca By (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Michael Thomas (Nov 26)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Michael Thomas (Nov 26)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 26)