On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:50 PM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> They will scale fine just like the dialup pools have scaled fine. >>>> >>>> Dialup pools are stateless. CGNs are stateful. They do not scale the same way. This is not to say that you _can't_ scale CGNs— >>> >>> So, something that has always confused me abut the CGN deployment discussions and scaling is the number of customers (victims?!) that people want to put behind an IP… >> >> Warren - thank you for asking this question. I asked it for several years, never got a satisfactory answer (never got much of any answer, really) and stopped asking... >> >> - Ralph >> > > Here is a hint http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericsson_images/10795593603/in/set-72157637442787564 > Ok, interesting… I hadn't been thinking of the mobile folk. So, if you happened to have *all* the 1.9 billion widgets at the moment (and were able to IP them now), putting 4x as many thingies behind an address would take you to 7.6B, or "good till ~2021ish"? > Oh, and, here is a usecase: Network operator wants to start are > regional mobile network in Europe or APAC: APNIC or RIPE will give > you a /22 for your entire business. Ok, that's more of an issue. Presumably if you are a startup regional mobile network in Eu or APAC you'd also purchase some additional addresses though? But yup, I can see how the world is different for mobile folk, and now have some more clue. Thanks. The folk I had been talking to were primarily large cable type players, who already have significant space and network. W > > CB > > > CB > >>> >>> If you are an operating ISP with e.g a /18 you can have ~16,000 customers[0]. Great, you are still growing, and want to add another 10,000 users, good for you. >>> For some reason at this point many ISPs start talking about putting on the order of 100s of users behind an IP, then the discussion turns into port starvation and scaling and such… >>> >>> >>> What's wrong with putting 2 users behind each IP? Are you really planning on doubling your size *before* significant advances in v6 deployment and CGN scaling come about? Yes? Ok, so put 4 users behind one IP (note, I did not say "device") -- are you really planning on quadrupling in the next few years? And if so, are you hiring? :-P >>> >>> Seriously, I don't get the "If we deploy CGN's we have to cram as many users behind one address as possible…" bit -- can anyone enlighten me? >>> >>> I've run some big NATs (for example, for AOL's corporate network) and yes it sucks, but you can minimize your (and your customer's) pain by overloading as little as possible…. >>> >>> >>>> it's just easier to scale stateless-core NATs. I say this based on zero operational experience, of course... :) >>> >>> Sure, fair 'nuff, no argument here…. >>> >>> W >>> [0]: Yes, yes, handwave, handwave, packing issues, infrastructure space, etc. Been there, run a network… Skipping all that for easy of discussion. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> There were such things as dwarf gods. Dwarfs were not a naturally religious species, but in a world where pit props could crack without warning and pockets of fire damp could suddenly explode they'd seen the need for gods as the sort of supernatural equivalent of a hard hat. Besides, when you hit your thumb with an eight-pound hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and straong-minded kind of atheist to jump up and down with their hand clasped under their other armpit and shout, "Oh, random-fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!" or "Aaargh, primitive-and-outmoded-concept on a crutch!" >>> -- Terry Pratchett >>> >>> > -- "Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well everything else..."