Ipv6 help

Wed Aug 26 04:43:50 UTC 2020

On 25/Aug/20 21:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

>  
>
> A few years ago, I was thinking that the cost of the “replacement” of
> the CPE was too high for most of the operators.  Not because the CPE
> itself, but the logistics or actually replacing it.
>

Which makes (or made) the case for vCPE. You don't need to truck-roll.
All the smarts happen in the data centre.

>  
>
> But since a few years, when you put the cost of CGN + IPv4 addresses
> (or actually just buying “more” IPv4 addresses and offering dual-stack
> without CGN – because the CGN will require you to swap the IPv4 pools
> just because Sony PSN is continuously blacklisting you) versus the
> lower number of IPv4 addresses needed for 464XLAT and lower number of
> NAT64 boxes, in  most cases, it compensates for the cost of replacing
> the CPEs, and you have additional marketing advantages that you can
> sell  and even charge for them, such as “Now we give you a box with
> Gigabit ports, greener for the planet -  lower power consumption,
> better WiFi, better security, ready for the future with IPv6,  IPv6 is
> faster with your social networks, youtube and many websites, etc., etc.)
>

Agreed.

Whether you go vCPE and upgrade all your customers in one go without
truck-rolling, or if you actually truck-roll and replace the CPE with
those which support CLAT, it makes technical and commercial sense vs.
having to deal with IPv4 and CGN's.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200826/02e2166e/attachment.html>