Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Mon Apr 8 14:47:22 UTC 2013

In a message written on Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:41:34AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Respectfully, I disagree. If the major content providers were to deploy
> IPv6 within the next 6 months (pretty achievable even now), then the
> need for CGN would at least be very much reduced, if not virtually
> eliminated.

I'm going to disagree, because the tail here I think is quite long.

Owen is spot on when looking at the percentage of bits moved across
the network.  I suspect if the top 20 CDN's were to IPv6 enable
_everything_ that 50-90% of the bits in most networks would be moved
over native IPv6, depending on the exact mix of traffic in the
network.

However, CDN's are a _very_ small part of the address space.  I'd
be surprised if the top 20 CDN's had 0.01% of all IPv4 space.  That
leaves a lot of hosts that need to be upgraded.  There's a lot of
people who buy a $9.95/month VPS to host their personal blog read
by 20 people who don't know anything about IPv4 or IPv6 but want
to be able to reach their site.  The traffic level may be
non-interesting, but they will be quite unhappy without a CGN
solution.

Moving the CDN's to IPv6 native has the potential to save the access
providers a TON of money on CGN hardware, due to the bandwidth
involved.  However those access providers still have to do CGN,
otherwise their NOC's will be innondated with complaints about the
inability to reach a bunch of small sites for a long period of time.

If I were deploying CGN, I would be exerting any leverage I had on CDN's
to go native IPv6.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130408/3209a580/attachment.sig>