Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:11:02 +0000

Jack,

I am assuming that you meant MAP, when you wrote MAPS.

The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There are
ISP layouts that use bridging instead of CPE routers (which was a long
term design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). CGN
will handle the IPv4 issues in this setup just fine. Then there are

I agree. Good point, btw.

This is the classical ISP deployment model, in which the ISP would usually
provide the layer2 modem, and let the customer get the retail CPE.

those who have already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in a
router configuration which does not have MAP support. Given the variety
of CPE vendors that end up getting deployed over a longer period of
time, it is easier and more cost effective to deploy CGN than try and
replace all the CPEs.

Seemingly so, until we start adding up the cost of

        - Logging infrastructure (setup & mtc)
        - Static NAT & Port forwarding (gaming, camera, etc.)
        - CGN redundancy & load-sharing
        - design complexity (to maintain symmetry)
        - ..

Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment costs)
for 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly doesn't seem so costly.

Let's throw some numbers of the above costs and then we can do the
apple-to-apple comparison. Else, you are right that CGN cost could be a
lot less.


Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 10:23 AM
To: Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>
Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.

The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the point
that 1 IPv4 Address per customer won't accommodate user bases.

The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There are
ISP layouts that use bridging instead of CPE routers (which was a long
term design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). CGN
will handle the IPv4 issues in this setup just fine. Then there are
those who have already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in a
router configuration which does not have MAP support. Given the variety
of CPE vendors that end up getting deployed over a longer period of
time, it is easier and more cost effective to deploy CGN than try and
replace all the CPEs.

Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment costs)
for 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly doesn't seem so costly.

The only way I see it justifiable is if you haven't had IPv6 deployment
in mind yet and you are having to replace every CPE for IPv6 support
anyways, you might go with a MAPS/IPv6 aware CPE which the customer pays
for if they wish IPv6 connectivity(or during whatever slow trickle
replacement methods you utilize). While waiting for the slow rollout,
CGN would be an interim cost that would be acceptable. I'm not sure
there is a reason for MAPS if you've already deployed CGN, though.

I am sure Verizon did a lot of cost analysis.

Jack




  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]