I did this "economics" exercise for a customer having 25.000.000 customers
(DSL, GPON and cellular). Even updating/replacing the CPEs, the cost of 464XLAT
deployment was cheaper than CGN or anything else.
Also, if you consider the cost of buying more IPv4 addresses instead of
investing that money in CGN, you avoid CGN troubles (like black listening your
IPv4 addresses by Sony and others and the consequently operation/management
expenses to rotate IPv4 addresses in the CGN, resolve customers problems,
etc.), it becomes cheaper than CGN boxes.
It's easy to predict that you will buy now CGN and tomorrow you will need to
buy some new IPv4 addresses because that black listening.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 24/2/21 3:13, "NANOG en nombre de Owen DeLong via NANOG"
<nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel...@nanog.org en nombre de
nanog@nanog.org> escribió:
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 6:44 AM, na...@jima.us wrote:
>
> While I don't doubt the accuracy of Lee's presentation at the time, at
least two base factors have changed since then:
>
> - Greater deployment of IPv6 content (necessitating less CGN capacity per
user)
This is only true if the ISP in question is implementing IPv6 along side
their CGN deployment and only if they get a significant uptake of IPv6
capability by their end users.
> - Increased price of Legacy IP space on the secondary market (changing
the formula) -- strictly speaking, this presentation was still in "primary
market" era for LACNIC/ARIN/AFRINIC
While that’s true, even at current prices, IPv4 addresses are cheaper to
buy and/or lease than CGN.
> IPv6 migration is not generally aided by CGNAT, but CGNAT deployment is
generally aided by IPv6 deployment; to reiterate the earlier point, any ISPs
deploying CGNAT without first deploying IPv6 are burning cash.
Yep.
I still think that implementing CGN is a good way to burn cash vs. the
alternatives, but YMMV.
Owen
>
> - Jima
>
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 16:59
> To: Steve Saner
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: CGNAT
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2021, at 8:38 AM, Steve Saner wrote:
>
>> We are starting to look at CGNAT solutions. The primary motivation at
the moment is to extend current IPv4 resources, but IPv6 migration is also a
factor.
>
> IPv6 Migration is generally not aided by CGNAT.
>
> In general, the economics today still work out to make purchasing or
leasing addresses more favorable than CGNAT.
>
> It’s a bit dated by now, but still very relevant, see Lee Howard’s
excellent research presented at the 2012 Rocky
> mountain v6 task force meeting:
>
> https://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TCO-of-CGN1.pdf
>
> Owen
>
>
> We've been in touch with A10. Just wondering if there are some
alternative vendors that anyone would recommend. We'd probably be looking at a
solution to support 5k to 15k customers and bandwidth up to around 30-40 gig as
a starting point. A solution that is as transparent to user experience as
possible is a priority.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Steve Saner
> ideatek HUMAN AT OUR VERY FIBER
> This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email
messages attached to it may contain confidential information. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you are not, or believe you may not be, the intended
recipient, please advise the sender immediately by return email or by calling
tel:620.543.5026. Then take all steps necessary to permanently delete the email
and all attachments from your computer system.
>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
