IPv6 and CDN's

Fri Nov 26 16:55:59 UTC 2021

Care to explain because the alternative seems pretty self-evident. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jose Luis Rodriguez" <jlrodriguez at gmail.com> 
To: "Jean St-Laurent" <jean at ddostest.me> 
Cc: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 8:16:53 AM 
Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's 

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. 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211126/779990d8/attachment.html>