Leasing /22

Tue Jan 23 16:59:45 UTC 2018

The funnest part is telling DMCA/RIAA that an IP address means nothing, not
without a port and exact time, someitmes down to a 10 minute mark. CGNAT +
NAT64/464 xlat using the fewest ipv4s as possible(as suggested) also
requires a large database to retain all records of every port and ipv4
address connected with every new connection.

On 23 January 2018 at 09:56, Ryan Gard <ryangard at gmail.com> wrote:

> The biggest problems that start to run with cases of CGN or any other v4
> aggregation method are services that still continue to treat single IP
> addresses as a single entity (a certain event ticket vendor comes to mind).
> Until these organizations either start opening a line of communications
> with ISPs, changing their methodology when handling traffic from v4
> addresses, and/or deploying v6, the song and dance for v4 addressing will
> continue.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> From:  Michael Crapse <michael at wi-fiber.io>
>> Date:  Monday, January 22, 2018 at 5:27 PM
>> To:  Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>
>> Cc:  Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org>, NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject:  Re: Leasing /22
>>
>> > Customers on ps4s and xboxes will hate you. They will always get
>> "strict" nat,
>> > and it's your fault not mega corporation X's fault for not releasing
>> IPv4s
>>
>> Maybe. You don’t have to configure strict NAT on your translator
>> (DS-Lite’s
>> pretty good at this, and although I’m a few weeks away from testing
>> consoles
>> through 464xlat and MAP, they should work, too). And their NAT workarounds
>> are pretty sophisticated now.
>>
>> There comes a point when winning your customers’ love isn’t profitable. I
>> don’t know if that point is $16/address for you, or $30, or $40, or $90.
>> Maybe it varies, depending on the customer.
>>
>> That’s why I suggested in “TCO of CGN”[1] that everyone figure out for
>> themselves how much money you might lose to unhappy customers via CGN, and
>> compare it to how much addresses cost, and at what price point you might
>> turn around and sell addresses. My findings then, based on assumptions
>> that
>> almost certainly are not true for any particular network, and which may
>> have
>> changed, suggest that buying addresses still makes sense.
>>
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> [1] http://ipv6.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2025
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 22 January 2018 at 15:23, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> >> Add to that CGN from RFC 6598 addresses (100.64/10) + IPv6 though that
>> >> reaches its limit at ~4M customers.
>> >>
>> >> Native IPv4 with a GUA to customers is essentially unavailable for new
>> >> ISPs.  It’s a matter of picking which flavour of NAT you and your
>> >> customers are going to use.  The sooner ALL ISP’s provide IPv6 to their
>> >> customers the sooner we restore delivering the Internet to the
>> customers.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >>> > On 23 Jan 2018, at 9:05 am, Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > IPv6 still solves your problem if you add any of NAT64, DS-Lite,
>> 464xlat,
>> >>> > MAP-T, MAP-E.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yes, you’re NATing, but only the traffic to places like Hulu, and
>> it will
>> >>> > decrease over time. And while you need addresses for the outside of
>> the
>> >>> > translator, you don’t need as many (or to get more as frequently).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Lee
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 1/20/18, 10:20 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett"
>> >>> > <nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>>> >> It's not really scraping the bottom of the barrel if your
>> customers are
>> >>>> >> using Hulu and they're complaining because Hulu isn't responsive
>> to
>> >>>> >> fixing their problems (geo-location, v6, etc.).
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> -----
>> >>>> >> Mike Hammett
>> >>>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >>>> >> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Midwest-IX
>> >>>> >> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> From: "Ca By" <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
>> >>>> >> To: "Michael Crapse" <michael at wi-fiber.io>
>> >>>> >> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org>
>> >>>> >> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 9:54:23 PM
>> >>>> >> Subject: Re: Leasing /22
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:48 PM Michael Crapse <
>> michael at wi-fiber.io>
>> >>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>> Has Hulu, or a thousand other content distributors considered
>> IPv6?
>> >>>>> >>> Because
>> >>>>> >>> you can't even tunnel to ipv4 without setting off VPN alarms
>> with
>> >>>>> HULU.
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Hulu? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel of content
>> providers that
>> >>>> >> dont use ipv6 these days.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Netflix and Youtube support v6 ... and thousand of others
>> (thousands
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> >> on Cloudflare where v6 is default on)
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> About 80% of my traffic is native e2e v6, mostly google / youtube
>> / fb /
>> >>>> >> netflix / apple / amazon — but your mix may vary.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> On 19 January 2018 at 18:38, Andrew Kirch <trelane at trelane.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ryan Gard <ryangard at gmail.com
>> >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> We're on the hunt yet again for an additional /22 to lease,
>> and
>> are
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> wondering what the best options are out there?
>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Our usual suspects that we've reached out to in the past
>> seem to
>> be
>> >>>>> >>> plum
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> out... Any recommendations?
>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Thanks!
>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Ryan Gard
>> >>>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> Have you considered IPv6?
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> >> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW+2117,+Australia&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> >> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 <tel:%2B61%202%209871%204742>
>>  INTERNET:
>> >> marka at isc.org
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Gard
>