Sent from my iPad On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application developers.
Correct. The most significant challenges to CGN are legal compliance issues. NAT complicates the process of determining who did what using the public IP at this timestamp. CGN developers have designed some novel solutions to that problem, such as dedicating port ranges to particular interior addresses and logging the range once instead of trying to log every connection. So, don't expect it to be a show stopper for long.
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not different.
Yes it is... In the enterprise, whatever the security team decides isn't supposed to be supported on the enterprise LAN, the end-users just sort of have to accept. In the residential ISP world, unless every ISP in a given service area degrades all of their customers in the exact same way, you have a very different situation.
CGN breaks the internet, but it doesn't break non-p2p VoIP at all whatsoever.
Also correct. The primary impacts from CGN are folks who want to host a game server, folks running bit torrent and folks who want to use Skype. Skype's not stupid and voip relays are easy so after minor growing pains that'll cease to be an issue too.
Make opting out of CGN simple and cheap. The relatively few folks who would be impacted will opt out with no particular animus towards you and you'll recover the IP addresses you had dedicated to the rest.
An interesting theory, but I don't think it will be so few. Owen