RIPE our of IPv4
Brandon Martin
lists.nanog at monmotha.net
Tue Nov 26 04:26:28 UTC 2019
On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
If it weren't for the ongoing need to continue to support IPv4
reachability (i.e. if we'd flag-day'd several years ago), I think the
(admittedly non-scientific) answer to that question is that we have
already passed it.
However, in the face of continuing need for IPv4 reachability, I'm less
sure. I think that the incremental cost to deploy and support IPv6 is
probably no more than the incremental savings of CGNAT headaches for
service providers caused by offloading what traffic you can to native
IPv6. Those savings from not just from capacity savings (which can be
extreme to totally trivial depending on your size) but also support for
having 3rd party services properly treat an SP customer as an individual
customer rather than the results of multiple SP customers being lumped
onto a small CGNAT target pool.
That is, even if you are 100% committed to needing to run a functional
CGNAT as a service provider and deal with everything that entails, I
think it's probably STILL in your short-term economic best interest to
deploy IPv6 simply due to the reduction in scope of "everything that
entails".
--
Brandon Martin
More information about the NANOG
mailing list