Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> It would be interesting to see how much of the IETF's resources are 
> used up by NAT issues. 

Probably not as much as needed, actually.  

Be that as it may, let's do some arithmetic: I would guess
that the really huge equipment vendors probably have about
50 FTEs each working on NAT workarounds (not NAT
implementation per se - just NAT workarounds).  Caveat: I
don't have any real numbers, this is just an estimate based
on what I've encountered in talking to people/companies
about NAT.  These workarounds include things like stateful
inspection/rewrite, relaying and encapsulation protocols,
etc., plus the associated coding, QA, standardization work,
and documentation, and includes everything from workarounds
for voice to workarounds for IPSec.  If you average about
$200,000 per employee per year (including salary, benefits,
office space, parking, telecom costs, etc.) that comes to
$10,000,000/year per really big company.  That sounds like a
lot of money to me.

Melinda


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]