Root Cause Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

Fri Jan 12 20:04:00 UTC 2024

Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?

Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.
On Friday, January 12th, 2024 at 2:55 PM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Tony:
>
> 0) As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. We do not need to address a request by literally following the thought trend. In troubleshooting, engineers are taught to look for the Root-Cause which more than often turns out to be something else originally thought. In this case, the "Any idea" hints that requester is open-minded for possible alternatives other than stated on the surface.
>
> 1) When reviewing a problem, we need to go one or more steps toward the source or the origin to look for the solution. Since the predominant operation model is CDN supported by CG-NAT, the primary reason to look for a publicly routable IPv4 address is to create another CG-NAT cluster. On the other hand, if there is a way to expand the capacity of the existing CG-NAT cluster, the need for additional publicly routable IPv4 address is reduced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Abe (2024-01-12 14:54)
>
> On 2024-01-10 23:26, Tony Wicks wrote:
>
>> 2) "... an operator clearly looking to acquire *publicly routable* space without being clear that this suggestion wouldn't meet their needs. ":
>>
>> Since 240/4 has 256M addresses while 100.64/10 has only 4M, a current CG-NAT cluster can be expanded 64 fold once the 240/4 is used. Looking from another angle, an IAP will then be able to expand the subscriber set 64 fold with still the original one publicly routable IPv4 address.
>>
>> The OP asked for “Any idea please on the best way to buy IPv4 blocs and what is the price”. I would expect they want actual public IPv4 address blocks and not internal CGNAT space. While the idea of using 240/4 instead of 100.64/10 would certainly have some merit I don’t believe its in any way related to what this OP asked for.
>>
>> regards
>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email	Virus-free.[www.avast.com](https://www.avast.com/sig-email)#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20240112/d32c68ba/attachment.html>