Dear Owen:
1) "... Africa ... They don’t really have a lot of alternatives. ...":
Actually, there is, simple and in plain sight. Please have a look at the
below IETF Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-ati-adaptive-ipv4-address-space
Hi Abraham,
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm having some
trouble understanding the deployment model for EzIP. Perhaps you
could help clear it up for me?
A non-EzIP web server is only going to see the global destination
IP address and TCP port number as the unique session identifiers
for communication, so the vast amount of additional IP space you
postulate existing behind the SPR functionally collapses down into
the 64K TCP port range available today in traditional port-based NAT
setups. As long as the top 50 websites aren't EzIP-aware, there appears
to be no benefit for an ISP to deploy EzIP, because it doesn't actually
gain them anything beyond what existing CG-NAT devices already provide
as far as their web-browsing customer base is concerned. Most of their
communication will still be port-based-NAT, with all the headaches and
restrictions inherent in that.
And for the top 50 websites, there's a lot of expense and absolutely no upside
involved in deploying EzIP. They don't care about how much IP space you have
behind your NAT device, and whether it's uniquely identifiable within your local
realm; it's not information they can access for tracking users, as they don't know
what your internal mapping is, so they'll continue to rely on browser cookies and
the like for tracking actual user sessions, regardless of the IP addressing format
being used.
So, you've got a model where there's functionally almost no benefit to the end user
until the major websites start deploying EzIP-aware infrastructure, and there's
pretty much no incentive for major websites to spend money upgrading their
infrastructure to support EzIP, because it provides no additional benefit for them.
This is pretty much exactly the same conundrum that IPv6 faced (and still faces
today). I don't see why EzIP is any better than IPv6 or CG-NAT in terms of solving
the IPv4 address shortage problem, and it seems to involve more expense for web
providers, because it requires them to deploy additional SPR mapping routers into
their infrastructure in order to use it, with essentially no additional benefit.
Is there a piece to the picture I'm not understanding correctly?
Thanks!
Matt