On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:38:17 -0700 Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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_c...
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