[address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
>>  - At that point in time your business has to have a solution.
>>    Possible solutions:
>>      - Do IPv6 - scales quite well, requires upgrades
>>      - Do IPv4 CGN - doesn't scale.
> 
> CGN not scale?
> 
> NAT, in general including CGN, does scale to the extent to make
> IPv6 not necessary.

It scales on paper, till you start using it.

1 IPv4 address, 65k TCP ports, if one user opens maps.google, he uses
200 TCP sessions on average, thus 65k/200 == 332 users per IPv4 address.
Yes, indeed, really "scales" well.

CGNs will btw only delay the inevitable.

(On the subject of CGN and content-restricting ISPs for CP and other
'legal reasons': I would actually simply go with an HTTP-only proxy.
Nothing difficult, nothing to evade unless people start encoding their
stuff inside HTTP)

>> Your pick on WHEN you are going to do that. Can do it today, can do it
>> in ten years when the competition has your customers. Enjoy ;)
> 
> If it is 10 years, we should use not IPv6 but something else.

You can do that, your competition will love you for it.

[..]
> As you don't accept the answer "never", discussion on whether it will
> actually be "never" or not is inevitable.

Give me one valid technical reason why I would accept "never"?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090724/82f85fec/attachment.sig>