-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Jose Luis Rodriguez" <jlrodriguez@gmail.com>
To: "Jean St-Laurent" <jean@ddostest.me>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 8:16:53 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's

Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov bids requiring tons of v4 address space.

> On Nov 26, 2021, at 07:04, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> With a kicking ass pitch
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
> Sent: November 26, 2021 5:52 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 and CDN's
>
>
>
>> On 11/3/21 22:13, Max Tulyev wrote:
>>
>> Implementing IPv6 reduces costs for CGNAT. You will have (twice?) less
>> traffic flow through CGNAT, so cheaper hardware and less IPv4 address
>> space. Isn't it?
>
> How to express that in numbers CFO can take to the bank?
>
> Mark.
>