[arin-ppml] Just a reminder of some quick mathematics for IPv4that shows the long term impossibility of it
tedm at ipinc.net
Fri May 13 17:03:06 EDT 2011
On 5/13/2011 10:39 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>> Does a rat who has lived its entire life in a cage realize it is in a
> I took a population of ad libitum "rats" and put them to this very test.
> I had about 100 or so DSL users who reprsented normal business and
> residential use.
> The used to each get a routable IPv4 address from a DHCP pool.
> Then I switched them to CGN and waited for complaints, upon which I
> would have switched back.
> I waited and waited. There were no complaints.
> It's been three years no and counting, they are still on CGN, and they
> are YouTubers, gamers, P2P participants, Skype users.
> Continuing to call CGN a nightmare looks ludicrous to me.
I would say in your case that it IS a nightmare. It's a financial
Did the CGN box you put in save you money? It seems to me that it
did not. It seems to me you spend a lot of money 3 years ago to do
this and that expense did nothing to get you more revenue. It seems
to me that if you HADN'T spent the money on the CGN box that you
would still have those same 100 customers today, you would have the
last 3 years * 100 in revenue from them - you just wouldn't have the
loss of money you spent on the CGN box.
Without a financial analysis to go along with your statement, you
really aren't seeing the entire picture.
With IPv6 we can do the shift from IPv4 to IPv6 by simply LEAVING ALONE
all existing IPv4 customers and doing the work of shifting to IPv6
with the NEW customers. Then the revenue from the existing customers
pays for the labor to add customers. Since after all you already have
to to the work of adding the NEW customers to your network because you
have to add network to your network, your spending money. That is
With the CGN way you have to go back to your revenue producers - your
existing 100 customers - and do the work to shift them over even if
all your doing is reworking your existing network. While you are doing
that your incurring labor costs that have to be paid, and your going
to pay them with revenue from the existing 100 and you won't be able
to pay to add new customers.
I know of no business that makes money by continually spending money
on it's infrastructure and getting nothing back. All profitable
businesses I've ever seen expect that for every dollar they spend
they get 2 customer dollars back. They also expect to use the
infrastructure for many years. They can do that with IPv6 by leaving
IPv4 alone and just adding new customers with IPv6.
>> Just because they haven't actually experienced the internet and have been
>> fooled into believing what they have is access to the internet does not
>> make the claim any more accurate.
>> As I said, they don't have internet access. They have a controlled
>> and limited subset of the features that define internet access.
>> The internet is a peer-to-peer network where each system has a
>> globally unique potentially reachable address and can operate
>> as both client and server. Machines behind a NAT have access
>> to only a subset of those defining features.
> Think about the etymology of the word Internet for a moment. It was
> designed as a network of networks, not a single Layer2 network.
> End-to-end addressability was not a goal of the founders of the
> Internet, it was network-to-network reachability.
Incorrect. I was around back then and the goal WAS end-to-end
reachability. The difference was that hosts then had lots of
users connected to them with RS232 terminals.
> In fact, the era of end-to-end for the Internet was the limited
> timeframe between popular acceptance and NAT.
Wrong because most people back then dialed in with a modem using
a terminal emulator program. The first connectivity was e-mail
gateways between the Internet and BBS networks like FidoNet.
The WWW came about later and it still wasn't that interesting until
pretty late in the 90's, around 96-97. And NAT came about when
most home users were still using dialup to connect to the Internet.
> Most people would fear to put a real IP address on a computer today, I
> know that I would.
> I use Logmein from behind NAT to address another computer behind another
logmein is not free for business use so your probably violating TOS.
And if you paid for it why should everyone else in the world pay
that company? Remote Desktop is free for business and personal use
and does not require some wacky active x control or java applet to
run in a browser. So is VNC. both of these are also faster.
> Rendezvous servers exist for that purpose, and the market favors them.
> Holding on to some dream of complete end-to-end reachability leaves out
> the inevitable firewall application between them in any case.
> Juniper and Cisco have enabled CGN on their big iron boxes, do you think
> they are unaware of the nightmarish negative impact of CGN you ascribe?
They OFFER CGN on their big iron they don't "enable" it, the admin
has to configure it for it to be enabled. And naturally they don't mind
if an admin does because they get to sell them more hardware that way.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML