mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:28:10 -0500
On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers
willing to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll
make the most sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4
services and tell laggard web sites like Amazon that they are SOL in
terms of getting further business from those customers.
CGN isn't that bad, and if you set up an acceptable opt-out method, it
should work fine. Some things haven't changed much. A majority of my
customers have no need for services that NAT44 or NAT444 break in a
noticeable way. In the same regard, I can cut their number of
simultaneous connections drastically if need be(but 16k gains me 4:1).
As long as their Facebook apps work, they most likely won't notice to
If I get 25% on CGN, I gain years of IPv4 reuse. If I succeed at 50%+, I
suspect I'll survive the cutover.
Of course, I don't believe anyone should consider CGN without IPv6
support. It has the potential of keeping people from noticing the CGN as
p2p apps support IPv6.
The only thing I haven't liked is that it looks like I'll have to have
the customer reboot after the opt-out for their IPv4 address
reassignment (or wait it out). One CGN deployment method I'm considering
is flow analysis of the customer traffic and automatically opting out
customers which analysis shows will definitely not work. This analysis
works best post dual stack deployment which isn't a problem for me.
I'm extremely happy with deterministic port block allocation(based on
Thankfully, I won't have to keep a log of every connection. I don't mind
exporting flows for analysis, but I don't want to keep 1-2 years of them.
RE: IPv6 and HTTPS Harry Hoffman (Apr 26)
Re: IPv6 and HTTPS Jakob Heitz (Apr 29)