MAP-E

Sun Aug 4 21:42:30 UTC 2019

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used
> for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.

> -> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you
> need to do the same,

With static port range assignment, we don't have to.

> I'm assuming that you follow for IPv6 RIPE690
> recommendations and you do persistent prefixes to customers,

I'm not interested in poor IPv6.

> Users needing more ports should pay more money and share an IP
> address with smaller number of users.
> 
> -> I don't agree. Users don't know if they need more or less ports,
> and this is something that may happen dynamically, depending on what
> apps are you using in your home, or if it is Xmas and you have extra
> family at home.

Only users know what applications they are using.

> If
> ISPs want to provide "different" services they should CLEARLY say it:
> "Dear customer, you have two choices 4.000 ports, 16.000 ports or all
> the ports for you with a single IP address".

That's what I have been saying.

> Otherwise you're
> cheating to customers, which in many countries is illegal, because
> providing a reduced number of ports IS NOT (technically) Internet
> connectivity, is a reduced functionality of Internet connectivity,

As Baldur Norddahl wrote:

> All MAP-E does is reserving a port range for each customer. So
> customer A might be assigned port range 2000-2999, customer B gets
> 3000-3999 etc.
we are talking about providing users a reduced number of ports
from 64K to, say, 2K.

As such, I'm afraid you have a very strange idea on Internet
connectivity, which is not shared by rest of us.

> and you must (legally) advertise it and of course, most customers
> don't understand that!

Most customers should choose least expensive option without
understanding anything, of course.

> If you define 4.000 ports per
> customer, some customers may be using only 300 ports (average) and
> that means that you're infra-utilizing 3,700 ports x number of users
> with that average. Not good!

Are you saying allocating a customer /48 IPv6 address is not good
because there is only 5 /64 links (average) used, which
infra-utilizing 64K /64?

> -> Never we should have charged users for IP addresses. This is a bad
> business model.

Feel free to ignore reality of ISP business.

							Masataka Ohta