Hi, Forrest: 0) You put out more than one topic, all at one time. Allow me to address each briefly. 1) " The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's side and every provider that has one wants to make it go away as quickly as possible. ": The feeling and desire are undeniable facts. However, the existing configuration was evolved from various considerations through a long time. There is a tremendous inertia accumulated on it. There is no magic bullet to get rid of it quickly. We must study carefully to evolve it further incrementally. Otherwise, an even bigger headache or disaster will happen. 2) " The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the need for any CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space. ": The obvious answer was IPv6. However, its performance after near two decades of deployment has not been convincing. EzIP is an alternative, requiring hardly any development, to address this need immediately. 3) " Until the cost (or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the cost to move, we're going to see continued resistance to doing so. ": This strategy is easily said than done. It reminds me of my system planning work for the old AT&T. At that time, Bell Operating Companies(BOCs) could be coerced to upgrade their facility by just gradually raising the cost of owning the old equipment by assuming fewer would be be used, while the newer version would cost less because growing number of deployments. Looking at resultant financial forecast, the BOC decisions were easy. Originally trained as a hardware radio engineer, I was totally stunned. But, it worked well under the regulated monopoly environment. Fast forward by half a century, the Internet promotes distributed approaches. Few things can be controlled by limited couple parties. The decision of go or no-go is made by parties in the field who have their own respective considerations. Accumulated, they set the direction of the Internet. In this case, IPv6 has had the opportunity of over four decades of planning and nearly two decades of deployment. Its future growth rate is set by its own performance merits. No one can force its rate by persuasion tactic of any kind. Hoping so is wishful thinking which contributes to wasteful activities. So, we need realistic planning. Regards, Abe (2024-01-12 18:42) On 2024-01-12 01:34, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
The problem isn't the quantity of "inside" CG-NAT address space. It's the existence of CG-NAT at all.
It doesn't matter if the available space is a /12 or a /4, you still need something to translate it to the public internet. The existence of that CG-NAT box is a thorn in every provider's side and every provider that has one wants to make it go away as quickly as possible.
The quickest and most straightforward way to eliminate the need for any CG-NAT is to move to a bigger address space. As I pointed out, IPv6 is already ready and proven to work so moving to IPv6 is a straightforward process technically. What isn't straightforward is convincing IPv4 users to move. Until the cost (or pain) to stay on IPv4 is greater than the cost to move, we're going to see continued resistance to doing so.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 7:36 PM Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Forrest:
0) Thanks for your in-depth analysis.
1) However, my apologies for not presenting the EzIP concept clearer. That is, one way to look at the EzIP scheme is to substitute the current 100.64/10 netblock in the CG-NAT with 240/4. Everything else in the current CG-NAT setup stays unchanged. This makes each CG-NAT cluster 64 fold bigger. And, various capabilities become available.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-11 22:35)
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com