[AusNOG] SMH: "No room at the internet"

[Adrian Chadd]

[Off-Topic!]

On Thu, May 20, 2010, Mark Newton wrote:
> 
> On 20/05/2010, at 8:48 AM, Ankur Puri wrote:
> 
> Having carrier grade NAT will be very hardware intensive and eventually requires substantial capex, which begs a question if it is rather better for carriers and ISPs to look at migration plans to IPv6 than delaying the eventual.
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> I know I'll need CGNAT boxes.  But considering their expense, I also know
> that I'll only ever want to buy them once.  I'll never want to upgrade them
> to deal with increased IPv4 network load, so it'll be in my best interest to push
> customers to IPv6 as quickly as humanly possible.

One just hopes that:

(a) CGNAT boxes are more expensive capex/opex wise than just updating
    to hardware that supports IPv6; and
(b) the "Vendors", faced with a mad rush of IPv6 adoption all over the place,
    don't suddenly require -another- round of platform refresh above what
    is available now.

The slight cynic in me worries about (b). Ie, if the "Vendors" get a rush
of IPv6 related changes which require a hardware refresh cycle and people
have just forklifted their equipment on a semi-3-year-cycle; it may be
2 or 3 years before the next grumbling forklift upgrade. By then, CGNAT
(or similar tech) may have had two/three years to settle in and become
"easier".

As I said, I'm just being slightly cynical. This hasn't happened before
in our industry, oh no. :)



Adrian