JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
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,
With static port range assignment, we don't have to.
I'm assuming that you follow for IPv6 RIPE690
recommendations and you do persistent prefixes to customers,
I'm not interested in poor IPv6.
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.
Only users know what applications they are using.
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".
That's what I have been saying.
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,
As Baldur Norddahl wrote:
All MAP-E does is reserving a port range for each customer. So
customer A might be assigned port range 2000-2999, customer B gets
3000-3999 etc.
we are talking about providing users a reduced number of ports
from 64K to, say, 2K.
As such, I'm afraid you have a very strange idea on Internet
connectivity, which is not shared by rest of us.
and you must (legally) advertise it and of course, most customers
don't understand that!
Most customers should choose least expensive option without
understanding anything, of course.
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!
Are you saying allocating a customer /48 IPv6 address is not good
because there is only 5 /64 links (average) used, which
infra-utilizing 64K /64?
-> Never we should have charged users for IP addresses. This is a bad
business model.
Feel free to ignore reality of ISP business.
Masataka Ohta
