Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
> > will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
>
> Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?

I suppose that the way to frame this as: does it require the ISP to
carry flow statefulness in their network in places where they didn't
have to before. That to my mind is the big hit.

> > One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
> > to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
> > the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is ultimately
> > a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses penalty:
> > make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)
>
> Hm, sounds like NAT64 or MAP to me (although, honestly, we may end up making MAP "too good".)

I was going to say that NAT64 could be helpful, but thought better of it
because it may have its own set of issues. For example, are all of the resources
*within* the ISP v6 available? They may be a part of the problem as well as a
part of the solution too. I would think that just the prospect of having a less
expensive/complex infrastructure would be appealing as v6 adoption ramps up,
and gives ISP's an incentive to give the laggards an incentive.

Mike