On May 7, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> (c) N:1 >> model: a single CGN serve a group of PGW/GGSN. Indeed, having +16M of >> customers >> is a valid case. **BUT** which Service Provider will accept to service this >> huge >> amount of UEs with the same node (if we suppose that a mega centralised CGN >> implementation is found in the market)? This is single point of failure >> design >> which SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED. > > IMHO it is N:1 and that's why GI-DS lite is interesting to the operators. I > agree with you that having 16M+ MNs NAT'ed by a single CGN is something I > have not heard of, yes there there is a problem.
co-chair hat off: This is the N:P aspect that I find interesting in GI-DS-lite. And it does not have to be limited to 16M+ address being concentrated... nor be limited to wireless. Think about an ISP with a number of access router and a number of centralized NATs. Each customer connected to an access router is using his own version of RFC1918. What GI-DS-lite enable is to implement the NAT function in a different box that potentially has different scaling properties than the access router. - Alain. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
