mailing list archives
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
From: Don Gould <don () bowenvale co nz>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:36:49 +1300
I really didn't follow to much of this thread, it's all a bit weird with
some obvious industry under currents running that I don't follow.
What I will say is that I'm currently involved with exactly this issue
and would have to say that it's all just getting sillier by the day.
I've been researching solutions with NAT and double NAT in mind because
it's obvious that v4 space is going to become a growing problem.
It's interesting to see the things that break when you use double NAT.
What's also interesting is the growing competitive market place with
incumbent providers, who have enough v4 space for their entire market,
contracting their retail operations while their retail competitors are
growing in size.
I've been working on some very basic projections for my country and
expect over the next decade we will see at least 30%, or more, movement
in our market.
So where is this going to leave v4 allocations? Will the incumbents
protect their retail operations by locking up their v4 space so that
smaller competitors can't grow?
Will we all move to v6 to make the problem go away? (Not likely, the
level of edge understanding of v6 isn't there, and you lot already had a
rant about CPE this week, so I won't go there!)
Will we develop smarter v4 technology and just NAT on NAT... and on NAT?
The only thing that is really clear is the lack of clarity.
On 10/12/2011 7:37 a.m., Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be
able to run their business the way they would like…
This is just a data point.
31 Acheson Ave
Christchurch, New Zealand
Ph: + 64 3 348 7235
Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
Re: Sad IPv4 story? John Curran (Dec 11)
Re: Sad IPv4 story? Don Gould (Dec 14)