Re: IPv6 and HTTPS

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4 
> demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes 
> that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto 
> these addresses. 

The residential currently eats up a majority of my addresses, so the 
more I can recover from them for business customers, the better.

> Telling a customer to reboot a router (or a single host) isn't all 
> that bad. After all, they probably did that at least 5 times at the 
> behest of your front-line support folks before they reached someone 
> that understood the problem anyway. (At least that's been my general 
> experience with most residential providers). 

Perhaps my viewpoint is different, given that I only have two lines of 
support folk, and talking to me is a rarity for a customer. :)

> Or 7, as required by CALEA. The problem with draft-donely is that 
> customers that exceed the expected number of ports run into issues (or 
> additional logging required), so you either don't get the best 
> efficiency out of your addresses, or you get problems in other ways. Owen 

That problem was mentioned on v6ops, and the general lesson that I took 
from it is to not exceed 16:1 ratio if it can be helped. 4k ports should 
be fine. 64:1 is probably sustainable for a lot of customers with 1k 
ports, but there will be a percentage that will have issues. Luckily, 
most of those with issues are usually running services that require 
opt-out anyways.

If I calculate correctly, even at 20% of my residential(70% of total 
allocated) on CGN, I'm regaining 18% of my residential assignments with 
a 16:1 ratio. I could conservatively figure a years worth of my usual 
allocation has been saved. If I can push better numbers, I'll get more 
years.

Jack