CGN and CDN (was Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?)

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Fri Sep 9 15:25:35 UTC 2011

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-Francois.TremblayING at said:

> A very interesting point. In order to save precious CGN resources, 
> it would not be surprising to see some ISPs asking CDNs to provide 
> a private/non-routed behind-CGN leg for local CDN nodes. 
> For this to work, the CGN users would probably have a different 
> set of DNS servers (arguably also with a private/non-routed
> leg) or some other way to differentiate these CGN clients. Lots 
> of fun in the future debugging that.

Especially once you have 10 or 15 CDNs doing this, all of which have different
rules of engagement. "Akamai requires us to do X, Hulu wants Y, Foobar wants Y
and specifically NOT-X..." ;)

And then Cogent will get into another peering spat and.... :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list