On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 15:15 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:On 31/10/2009, at 5:58 PM, TreeNet Admin wrote:The huge problem is all the home customers with ancient second-handCPE.I don't think they're a huge problem as they're the least likely tonotice the implementation of SP-NAT in front of their connection. Iknow at least one large ISP in our region considering this as phase #1of an SP-NAT implementation.
I saw a great presentation at the IPv6 Hui that were held in
Christchurch, Auckland and Wellington recently.
It was presented by Dr Hiroshi Esaki from the WIDE project in Japan.
He made it pretty clear that SP-NAT does not scale. See here:
http://www.ipv6.org.nz/02C%20-%20Hiroshi%20Esaki%20keynote%20-%20IPv6%
20Hui.pdf
Start at Page 9 :-)
The point he makes is this. TCP has a limited numberspace. Stuff on the
internet in terms of number of connections per session can be large (and
unknown frankly).
iTunes has in excess of 200 connections per session. Divide 65K by 200
connections and you're left with an equation that says you can only
serve iTunes to about 300 odd users from one NAT box.
But you know that :-)
jamieThe big issue right now is: the lack of IPv6 native support in CPE atall. If we had the larger CPE vendors starting to implement (*) thenwith a 2 year replacement time for most CPE we'd be fine by the time alack of v4 addresses starts to pinch.In NZ at the moment with VDSL2 starting to be rolled out it'd be aPERFECT time to start squirrelling (or whatever marsuipal/mammal youguys have) it into people's houses as people replace CPE. But I'mguessing that it's not happening that way alas.We need to start getting IPv6 out there to end-customers to start theball rolling to start shaking the problems down. (And believe methere a whole LOT of problems with IPv6 in actual real production toDSL customers ...)(*) Let's face it - given that almost all the CPE is Linux based it'sjust laziness on the CPE vendor's part as it's already bloody welldone for them.MMC