nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:52:06 +0200
On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
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?
How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank? 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 Oliver O'Boyle (Nov 26)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 26)