IPv6 and CDN's

Jose Luis Rodriguez jlrodriguez at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 14:16:53 UTC 2021


Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov bids requiring tons of v4 address space. 

> On Nov 26, 2021, at 07:04, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
> 
> With a kicking ass pitch
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
> 
> 
> 
>> On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
>> 
>> Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less 
>> traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address 
>> space. Isn't it?
> 
> How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
> 
> Mark.
> 


More information about the NANOG mailing list