Hi Eduard, Do I interpret your findings correctly, if this means that CGNAT costs scale more or less linearly with traffic growth over time?
And as a corollary, that the cost of scaling CGNAT in itself isn't likely a primary driver for IPv6 adoption? - Jared Vasilenko Eduard wrote: > > CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same performance. > Hence, 1 hop through CGNAT = 3 hops through routers. > 3 router hops maybe the 50% of overall hops in the particular Carrier (or > even less). > > DWDM is 3x more expensive per hop. Fiber is much more expensive (greatly > varies per situation and distance). > Hence, +50% for IP does not mean +50% for the whole infrastructure, not at > all. > > I was on all primary vendors for 2.5 decades. 3x cost of NAT was consistent > for all vendors and at all times. > Because it is a "Network processor" (really flexible one with a big memory) > against "specialized ASIC". COTS (x86) is much worse for the big scale - does > not make sense to compare. > It has started to decrease recently when SFPs have become the bigger part of > the router (up to 50% for single-mode). > Hence, I expect the decrease of the difference between router and CGNAT cost > to 2x long-term. > Optical vendors are more capable to protect their margins. > > It is a different situation in Mobile Carriers, where Packet Core and Gi-LAN > were never accelerated in hardware. > Everything else is so expensive (x86) per Gbps, that CGNAT is not visible in > the cost. > > Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] On > Behalf Of Jared Brown > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:33 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported) > > An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is the cost of scaling CGNAT or > equivalent infrastructure for IPv4. > > Those of you facing costs for scaling CGNAT, are your per unit costs rising > or declining faster or slower than your IPv4 traffic growth? > > I ask because I realize I am not fit to evaluate the issue on a general > level, as, most probably due to our insignificant scale, our CGNAT marginal > costs are zero. This is mainly because our CGNAT solution is oversized to our > needs. Even though scaling up our currently oversized system further would > lower per unit costs, I understand this may not be the case outside our > bubble. > > > - Jared >
