nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Tom Hill <tom () ninjabadger net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:42:43 +0100
On 22/10/2021 17:08, 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.
There aren't enough folk thinking along these lines, so thank you for writing it. Every flow you can route exclusively with 6, is one flow you aren't having to pay extra for so it can sit in a CGNAT state table. ... And that's before they call you, as Tim also rightly points out. -- Tom
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Jens Link (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Lukas Tribus (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Marco Davids via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Matthew Walster (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Jens Link (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Job Snijders via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's tim () pelican org (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Tom Hill (Oct 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's David Conrad (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Christopher Morrow (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Bryan Fields (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's David Conrad (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) Bryan Fields (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) John Curran (Oct 26)
- Re: . (was IPv6 and CDN's) John Levine (Oct 26)