On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:50 AM Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote: > Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks < > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > >> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with > RFC-1918 > >> without running out of > >> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks. > >> > >> OK.. I'll bite. What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't > tolerate > >> partitioned networks? There's eyeball networks out there that have that > >> many > >> endpoints, but they end up partitioned behind multiple NAT boxes. > >> > >> > > Why would you assume partitioning is an acceptable design constraint ? > > > > I don’t think the cellular networks in the USA, each with over a 100M > > subscribers, wants their customers partitioned, and that is why the IMS / > > SIP on each modern phone is exclusively ipv6, afaik > > You don't need to partition the customers to partition the network. > It's not like any single network entity scales to a 100M sessions in any > case. You will need more than one SIP server. > > You'll have multiple instances of "that user with 10.10.10.10", but > that's easily addressed that by including the associated network > segment. So you have "that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment A" and > "that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment B". They can both be part of the > same customer database or whatever > > > Bjørn
I understand you think it could work that way I am sharing with you that the gymnastics to make such a kludge work was reject years ago The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is ipv6-only, afaik. I believe you will find similar cases for hyper-scalers like google, fb, ... CB >
