> The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as
> SonyPlaystation Network will put those addresses in the black list,
> so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for
> 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the addresses dynamically.
A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be
used for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you need to
do the same, and because if you deploy 464XLAT you have less than 25% (and
going down) of your traffic with IPv4, your cost for logging decreases. I'm
assuming that you follow for IPv6 RIPE690 recommendations and you do persistent
prefixes to customers, otherwise you also need IPv6 logging (but this is not
different regardless of what transition mechanism you use).
> Furthermore, if some users need less ports than others, you
> "infra-utilize" those addresses,
Users needing more ports should pay more money and share an
IP address with smaller number of users.
-> I don't agree. Users don't know if they need more or less ports, and this is
something that may happen dynamically, depending on what apps are you using in
your home, or if it is Xmas and you have extra family at home. This is not good
for users, is not good for ISPs. If ISPs want to provide "different" services
they should CLEARLY say it: "Dear customer, you have two choices 4.000 ports,
16.000 ports or all the ports for you with a single IP address". Otherwise
you're cheating to customers, which in many countries is illegal, because
providing a reduced number of ports IS NOT (technically) Internet connectivity,
is a reduced functionality of Internet connectivity, and you must (legally)
advertise it and of course, most customers don't understand that!
> which again is not the case for 464XLAT/NAT64. Each user gets
> automatically as many ports as he needs at every moment.
Unless all the ports are used up.
-> That's right, but you need to calculate a sufficient number of IPv4
addresses for your pool (which for sure will be lower than in MAP or lw4o6 or
DS-Lite), and even if your number of customers go up, because more and more
services are available with IPv6, your number of IPv4 will not keep growing. If
you define 4.000 ports per customer, some customers may be using only 300 ports
(average) and that means that you're infra-utilizing 3,700 ports x number of
users with that average. Not good!
Thus, even with dynamic port assignment, users needing more
ports should pay more money and share an IP address with
smaller number of users.
-> Never we should have charged users for IP addresses. This is a bad business
model. Is not technically a good thing to provide non-persistent addresses. If
we keep saying that, we will end up providing a single IPv6 address to every
customer and doing NAT again. If an ISP want to do that, fine, but the
competitors will be smarter (hopefully!).
Masataka Ohta
**********************************************
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.
