Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
From: Brandon Ross <bross () pobox com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:10:31 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:

So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?

Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?

One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP's interest
to deploy v6 on the client side because each new v6 site that lights up on
the internet side is less traffic forced through the CGN gear which is ultimately a cost down. So maybe an alternative to a death penalty is a molasses penalty:
make the CGN experience operable but bad/congested/slow :)

Hm, sounds like NAT64 or MAP to me (although, honestly, we may end up making MAP "too good".)

Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross

  By Date           By Thread  

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