On 17/02/2007, at 9:51 AM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
This one is easy.
Now surely we all know by now that it is never easy! :)
What you're suggesting would require thousands of servers to be deployed. And then add the server management cost to that, and it would easily be the most expensive solution - but a long way.
That's a pretty simplistic analysis. For starters, the costs associated with deploying and managing servers is well understood. The cost of deploying IPv6 networks is not. Except a lot of these devices are deployed now anyway. Many VoIP PBXs proxy both media and signalling (Nathan's session border controller) as a means to implement security policy. I'm sitting behind a transparent proxy at the moment. Most businesses these days have firewalls of some description, again to force traffic through a policy enforcement point. There are only a couple of networks where I can now reasonably expect to be able to send out on TCP/25 to anything other than the local network's nominated mail server. These things are already busting end to end connectivity. At the risk of taking this thread somewhere it shouldn't - do we even care about end to end connectivity anymore?
NAT breaks lots of protocols, and makes others more difficult to work reliably. It is going to generate more help desk calls than something which doesn't use NAT.
So perhaps we reached a point where it should be considered bad form for one to design protocols that are not NAT friendly then?
This only leaves IPv6 as the cheapest option.
That would explain the hordes rushing to deploy it then! Cheers, Jonny.
-----Original Message----- From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nznog(a)daork.net] Sent: Saturday, 17 February 2007 11:01 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] [Fwd: [pacnog] IPv4 exhaustion discussionsin AsiaPacific region]
On 17/02/2007, at 3:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
It's an interesting problem, though. If you ran an enterprise with 23 million employees, and an ever increasing number of them needed a permanent connection to the Internet, what would you do? On that scale, and given a certain amount of centralised control of content and infrastructure, what looks more expensive? NAT or IPv6?
End-to-end IP connectivity is so passe. I'd give them proxy servers for HTTP, and servers per network for SMTP/POP3/IMAP etc. (DNS intentionally left off - why do end users need it at this point?). Forget about SIP NAT and all that similar trash - have it talk to network local SBCs (or similar).
They probably don't /really/ need to exchange IP with people outside their network, most will only care that they can browse [local auction site]. I suspect such an approach would suit [country] well, infact. Maybe [vendor H] should go in to the proxy server market. It wouldn't be hard, [vendor N] proxy servers are little more than flashed up PCs - not hard to copy^Wduplicate^Wtake inspiration from.
So, now which is more expensive? NAT, IPv6, or Proxying/local servers?
Consider that many organisations already run proxy servers for authentication reasons, and don't allow any end user IP outside their organisation..
-- Nathan Ward
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog