Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
>> without running out of
>> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>>
>> OK.. I'll bite.  What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't tolerate
>> partitioned networks?  There's eyeball networks out there that have that
>> many
>> endpoints, but they end up partitioned behind multiple NAT boxes.
>>
>>
> Why would you assume partitioning is an acceptable design constraint ?
>
> I don’t think the cellular networks in the USA, each with over a 100M
> subscribers, wants their customers partitioned, and that is why the IMS /
> SIP on each modern phone is exclusively ipv6, afaik

You don't need to partition the customers to partition the network.
It's not like any single network entity scales to a 100M sessions in any
case.  You will need more than one SIP server.

You'll have multiple instances of "that user with 10.10.10.10", but
that's easily addressed that by including the associated network
segment.  So you have "that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment A" and
"that user with 10.10.10.10 in segment B". They can both be part of the
same customer database or whatever


Bjørn