On 16/05/25 23:30, Tim Burke via NANOG wrote:
Meanwhile, I’m still over here dying on a hill stating that CGNAT has no
business in fiber to the premises deployments… and this is just additional
evidence. :-)
Trying to do hacky things with CGNAT to save a buck is, IMHO, inexcusable,
especially when lots of FTTP operators are now overbuilding legacy
ILECs/cablecos with fiber that is typically being promoted as “superior in
every way”.
If a company can spend thousands in construction costs to build to a house,
hundreds per house on CPE, excessive quantities of money on marketing, $35 (and
going down) per public IP on the secondary market is pennies in comparison when
it comes to customer acquisition cost.
Just my opinion, nobody else’s, as someone that is no longer involved in the
eyeball network business ;-)
Tim
There are more houses in the world than IP addresses, so I am curious to
hear your plan to give an IP address to every house.
There's IPv6. I wonder if all of /your/ Internet-facing services are
accessible via IPv6. Globally, most aren't.
As long as there are fewer X than Y, every plan to give a unique X to
each Y is just pushing the can down the road - probably to ISPs in
third-world countries which nobody on this list actually cares about. I
hear that some of them have on the order of 1 IP address per city.
After one IP per house, the next best distribution is for *everyone* to
behind CGNAT at a similar ratio and feel the pain equally. Maybe it will
catalyze more IPv6 adoption.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TYNLRAMRM4BSXCTCPSA5HE7VJZB7ABTJ/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FWU66CMUEYMZB6OVBPUI2FKD3FGRZB5P/
