nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and CDN's
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 00:07:10 +0900
Mark Tinka wrote:
I can very easily see why "IPv6 saves you on CG-NAT capex might not be entirely true" in cases such as these.
Because lengthy IPv6 addresses mean a lot more opex than IPv4.
On paper, it all adds up.
With IPv6, you need 4 times more paper. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Dave Taht (Nov 28)
- RE: IPv6 and CDN's Jean St-Laurent via NANOG (Nov 26)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Grzegorz Janoszka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Michael Thomas (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Christopher Morrow (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 27)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Mark Tinka (Nov 28)
- Re: IPv6 and CDN's Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)