<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Nov 22, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Sam Silvester <<a href="mailto:sam.silvester@gmail.com" class="">sam.silvester@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Customer A might have a CGNAT outside IP <span style="font-size: 13.3333px;" class="">192.0.2.1 port range 10001 to 11000<br class="">Customer B might have a CGNAT outside IP 192.0.2.1 port range 20001 to 21000<br class=""></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Something I’ve been curious about for a while:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">How many people on this list are using IPv4 CGNAT?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My back of the envelope figures for IPv4 consumption vs internet subscriber growth in this region strongly suggest that you all have many years of IPv4 supply remaining, and have no need to deploy expensive and unreliable CGNAT.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Have any of you missed out on addresses badly enough to need it?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - mark</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>