Re: Sudden surge in CGNAT blacklisting

[nanog--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On 16/05/25 23:30, Tim Burke via NANOG wrote:
> Meanwhile, I’m still over here dying on a hill stating that CGNAT has no business in fiber to the premises deployments… 
> and this is just additional evidence. :-)
>
> Trying to do hacky things with CGNAT to save a buck is, IMHO, inexcusable, especially when lots of FTTP operators are 
> now overbuilding legacy ILECs/cablecos with fiber that is typically being promoted as “superior in every way”.
>
> If a company can spend thousands in construction costs to build to a house, hundreds per house on CPE, excessive 
> quantities of money on marketing, $35 (and going down) per public IP on the secondary market is pennies in comparison 
> when it comes to customer acquisition cost.
>
> Just my opinion, nobody else’s, as someone that is no longer involved in the eyeball network business ;-)
> Tim

There are more houses in the world than IP addresses, so I am curious to 
hear your plan to give an IP address to every house.

There's IPv6. I wonder if all of /your/ Internet-facing services are 
accessible via IPv6. Globally, most aren't.

As long as there are fewer X than Y, every plan to give a unique X to 
each Y is just pushing the can down the road - probably to ISPs in 
third-world countries which nobody on this list actually cares about. I 
hear that some of them have on the order of 1 IP address per city.

After one IP per house, the next best distribution is for *everyone* to 
behind CGNAT at a similar ratio and feel the pain equally. Maybe it will 
catalyze more IPv6 adoption.


> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/TYNLRAMRM4BSXCTCPSA5HE7VJZB7ABTJ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/FWU66CMUEYMZB6OVBPUI2FKD3FGRZB5P/