Please unsubscribe me from this WG Thanks.
> On 25 Nov 2016, at 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > >> So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct >> or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more >> information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between >> Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN >> to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” >> of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. > > I don't see a connection between a CoC for CGN sizing would have an impact on > IPv6 deployment. > > A CoC that spells out that IPv6 is important and that the government expects > this, and tells all the upper management of ISPs that this is the case, that > might help. > > I think the reason Belgium is so big on IPv6 is that (and I might be wrong, > but this is the impression I have from talking to people with insight) is > that PPPoE is widely used, ISPs provide gateways that people use in homesm > and there are a few large players. This means it's fairly easy to deploy IPv6. > >> As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and >> workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you > > Well, 16:1 makes a lot of sense, I'd say sensible is somewhere between 16:1 > and 64:1. Port ranges should be used to make logging less of a problem, and > that means you allocate 1024, 2048 or 4096 ports per user as a block at once. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
