Verizon DSL moving to CGN

Tue Apr 9 00:49:35 UTC 2013

On Apr 8, 2013, at 07:58 , joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/13 7:23 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 7:20 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> BTW. It is AIUI quite possible with MAP to provision a "whole" IPv4
>>> address or even a prefix to the subscriber, thus also taking away the
>>> need for [srcport-restricted] NAPT44 in the CPE.
>> 
>> The problem is NAPT44 in the CPE isn't enough. We are reaching the point that 1 IPv4 Address per customer won't accommodate user bases.
>> 
> That happened a long time ago. I realize the people like to think of wireless providers as different, they really aren't. A big chuck of our mobile gaming customers come to us via carrier operated nat translators. Some of them now come to us via ipv6, most do not.
>> The larger issue I think with MAP is CPE support requirements. There are ISP layouts that use bridging instead of CPE routers (which was a long term design to support IPv6 without CPE replacements years later). CGN will handle the IPv4 issues in this setup just fine. Then there are those who have already deployed IPv6 capable CPEs with PPP or DHCP in a router configuration which does not have MAP support. Given the variety of CPE vendors that end up getting deployed over a longer period of time, it is easier and more cost effective to deploy CGN than try and replace all the CPEs.
>> 
>> Given US$35/CPE, cost for replacements (not including deployment costs) for 20k users is US$700k. CGN gear suddenly doesn't seem so costly.
>> 
>> The only way I see it justifiable is if you haven't had IPv6 deployment in mind yet and you are having to replace every CPE for IPv6 support anyways, you might go with a MAPS/IPv6 aware CPE which the customer pays for if they wish IPv6 connectivity(or during whatever slow trickle replacement methods you utilize). While waiting for the slow rollout, CGN would be an interim cost that would be acceptable. I'm not sure there is a reason for MAPS if you've already deployed CGN, though.
>> 
>> I am sure Verizon did a lot of cost analysis.
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
> 

There is actually a key difference. In the US, at least, everyone is used to the cellular networks mostly sucking.

They are willing to put up with far more degraded service over wireless than they will tolerate on a wired connection.

You and I and everyone else on this list realize that this is complete BS, but the majority of the general public tolerates it, so it persists.

Owen