nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 woes - RFC
From: Colton Conor <colton.conor () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:34:16 -0500
300 apartments Mark. No, it's bulk internet and wifi so a single provider. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
And how many apartments where covered by that single IP address? Was this where there is a restriction on other providers so the occupants had no choice of wireline ISP?On 23 Sep 2021, at 09:38, Colton Conor <colton.conor () gmail com> wrote: Where does this "You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4 address on a CGN." limit come from? I have seen several apartment complexes run on a single static IPv4 address using a Mikrotik with NAT. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:49 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 16:48, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:Today, as /24 can afford hundreds of thousands of subscribers by NAT, only very large retail ISPs need more than one announcement for IPv4.You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4 address on a CGN. If you try to go further than that, for example by using symmetric NAT, you will increase the number of customers that want to get a public IPv4 of their own. That will actually decrease the combined efficiency and cause you to need more, not less, IPv4 addresses. Without checking our numbers, I believe we have at least 10% of the customers that are paying for a public IPv4 to escape our CGN. This means a /24 will only be enough for about 2500 customers maximum. The "nat escapers" drown out the efficiency of the NAT pool. The optimization you need to do is to make the CGN as customer friendly as possible instead of trying to squeeze the maximum customers per CGN IPv4 address. Perhaps IPv6 can lower the number of people that need to escape IPv4 nat. If it helps just a little bit, that alone will make implementing IPv6 worth it for smaller emerging operators. Buying IPv4 has become very expensive. Yes you can profit from selling a public IPv4 address to the customer, but there is also the risk that the customer just goes to the incumbent, which has old large pools of IPv4 and provides it for free. Regards, Baldur-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Stephen Satchell (Sep 19)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 19)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 20)
- RE: IPv6 woes - RFC Brian Turnbow via NANOG (Sep 20)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 20)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 20)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Masataka Ohta (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Colton Conor (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Andrews (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Colton Conor (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Eric Kuhnke (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Mark Andrews (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Christopher Morrow (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Baldur Norddahl (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Christopher Morrow (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 22)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Bjørn Mork (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Owen DeLong via NANOG (Sep 23)
- Re: IPv6 woes - RFC Brian Johnson (Sep 23)