On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:38:17 -0700 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The hardware cost of supporting LSN is trivial. The management/maintenance > >> costs and the customer experience -> dissatisfaction -> support calls -> > >> employee costs will not be so trivial. > > > > Interesting opinion but not backed up by experience. > > > Since nobody has experience with LSN, that's a pretty easy statement to make. > It is backed up by capex - how many people can afford to have just the chassis to put one of these in? I know most ISPs in Australia can't (and my opinion is that you shouldn't be putting it in the core anyway - the only justification I can see to building one of these at this size is that scaling down is usually a lot easier than scaling up): http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6553/brochure_c02-560497_ns1017_Networking_Solutions_Brochure.html > However, given the tech. support costs of single-layer NAT and the number of > support calls I've seen from other less disruptive maintenance actions at > various > providers where I have worked, I think that in terms of applicable related > experience available, yes, this is backed by experience. > > > By contrast John Levine wrote: > >> My small telco-owned ISP NATs all of its DSL users, but you can get your > >> own IP on request. They have about 5000 users and I think they said I was > >> the eighth to ask for a private IP. I have to say that it took several > >> months to realize I was behind a NAT > > > > I'd bet good money John's experience is a better predictor of what will > > begin occurring when the supply of IPv4 addresses runs low. Then as now > > few consumers are likely to notice or care. > > > ROFL... John has already made it clear that his usage profile is particularly > NAT friendly compared to the average user. > > > Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the > > transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols. > > Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored. > > > Uh, no. Interesting how the wilful ignorance around NAT and IPv6 > is both delaying IPv6 transition and being used as an excuse to make > things even worse for customers in the future. > > > That said the underlying issue is still about choice. We (i.e., the > > IETF) should be giving consumers the _option_ of NAT in IPv6 so they > > aren't required to use it in IPv4. > > > I guess that depends on whose choice you are interested in preserving. > > Owen > >
