Re: IPv6 and CDN's

[Jose Luis Rodriguez <jlrodriguez () gmail com>]

Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 
depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large 
customer/gov bids requiring tons of v4 address space. 

> On Nov 26, 2021, at 07:04, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> With a kicking ass pitch
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me () nanog org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
>
>
>
> > 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.