mailing list archives
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:29:45 -0700
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
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?
I suppose that the way to frame this as: does it require the ISP to
carry flow statefulness in their network in places where they didn't
have to before. That to my mind is the big hit.
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".)
I was going to say that NAT64 could be helpful, but thought better of it
because it may have its own set of issues. For example, are all of the resources
*within* the ISP v6 available? They may be a part of the problem as well as a
part of the solution too. I would think that just the prospect of having a less
expensive/complex infrastructure would be appealing as v6 adoption ramps up,
and gives ISP's an incentive to give the laggards an incentive.