IPv6 woes - RFC

Thu Sep 23 20:23:49 UTC 2021

The DMCA notices for that single ipv4 /32 must be interesting.

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:35 AM Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 300 apartments Mark. No, it's bulk internet and wifi so a single provider.
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> >
> > And how many apartments where covered by that single IP address? Was this
> > where there is a restriction on other providers so the occupants had no
> > choice of wireline ISP?
> >
> > > On 23 Sep 2021, at 09:38, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Where does this "You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4
> > > address on a CGN." limit come from? I have seen several apartment
> > > complexes run on a single static IPv4 address using a Mikrotik with
> > > NAT.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:49 PM Baldur Norddahl
> > > <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 16:48, Masataka Ohta <
> mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Today, as /24 can afford hundreds of thousands of subscribers
> > >>> by NAT, only very large retail ISPs need more than one
> > >>> announcement for IPv4.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4 address on a
> CGN. If you try to go further than that, for example by using symmetric
> NAT, you will increase the number of customers that want to get a public
> IPv4 of their own. That will actually decrease the combined efficiency and
> cause you to need more, not less, IPv4 addresses.
> > >>
> > >> Without checking our numbers, I believe we have at least 10% of the
> customers that are paying for a public IPv4 to escape our CGN. This means a
> /24 will only be enough for about 2500 customers maximum. The "nat
> escapers" drown out the efficiency of the NAT pool.
> > >>
> > >> The optimization you need to do is to make the CGN as customer
> friendly as possible instead of trying to squeeze the maximum customers per
> CGN IPv4 address.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps IPv6 can lower the number of people that need to escape IPv4
> nat. If it helps just a little bit, that alone will make implementing IPv6
> worth it for smaller emerging operators. Buying IPv4 has become very
> expensive. Yes you can profit from selling a public IPv4 address to the
> customer, but there is also the risk that the customer just goes to the
> incumbent, which has old large pools of IPv4 and provides it for free.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Baldur
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210923/0cd22de3/attachment.html>