JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
A problem of dynamic sharing is that logging information to be used for such purposes as crime investigation becomes huge.
-> Of course, everything has good and bad things, but with NAT444 you need to do the same,
With static port range assignment, we don't have to.
I'm assuming that you follow for IPv6 RIPE690 recommendations and you do persistent prefixes to customers,
I'm not interested in poor IPv6.
Users needing more ports should pay more money and share an IP address with smaller number of users.
-> I don't agree. Users don't know if they need more or less ports, and this is something that may happen dynamically, depending on what apps are you using in your home, or if it is Xmas and you have extra family at home.
Only users know what applications they are using.
If ISPs want to provide "different" services they should CLEARLY say it: "Dear customer, you have two choices 4.000 ports, 16.000 ports or all the ports for you with a single IP address".
That's what I have been saying.
Otherwise you're cheating to customers, which in many countries is illegal, because providing a reduced number of ports IS NOT (technically) Internet connectivity, is a reduced functionality of Internet connectivity,
As Baldur Norddahl wrote:
All MAP-E does is reserving a port range for each customer. So customer A might be assigned port range 2000-2999, customer B gets 3000-3999 etc. we are talking about providing users a reduced number of ports from 64K to, say, 2K.
As such, I'm afraid you have a very strange idea on Internet connectivity, which is not shared by rest of us.
and you must (legally) advertise it and of course, most customers don't understand that!
Most customers should choose least expensive option without understanding anything, of course.
If you define 4.000 ports per customer, some customers may be using only 300 ports (average) and that means that you're infra-utilizing 3,700 ports x number of users with that average. Not good!
Are you saying allocating a customer /48 IPv6 address is not good because there is only 5 /64 links (average) used, which infra-utilizing 64K /64?
-> Never we should have charged users for IP addresses. This is a bad business model.
Feel free to ignore reality of ISP business. Masataka Ohta