[AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!

[Mark Smith]

Hi Michael,


----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Andreas Schipp <MSchipp at a10networks.com>
> To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>; "aj at sneep.net" <aj at sneep.net>; Daniel Pearson <dpearson at pingco.com.au>; "ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>; "AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net" <AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 12:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
> 
> Hi Mark,
>     At A10 Networks we do a lot of CGN, the normal is to allow 1000 ports or 
> less to each user.  So take 64k ports, reserve 16K for bursting clients gives 
> you 560 user per IP.  In the EMEA area they use even lower port counts.
> 

Any insights into why they're pursuing such high ratios of users to IP addresses? I really hope it isn't "just because you can".


Regards,
Mark.

> Thanks
> Michael.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] 
> On Behalf Of Mark Smith
> Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 11:50 AM
> To: aj at sneep.net; Daniel Pearson; ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net; 
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Alastair Johnson <aj at sneep.net>
>>  To: Daniel Pearson <dpearson at pingco.com.au>; 
> ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net; "AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net" 
> <AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>  Cc: 
>>  Sent: Friday, 25 January 2013 5:06 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
>> 
>>  Luckily the value will spike and then drop, so they better time it right.
>>  
> 
> If an ISP implements CGN with the ideal sharing ratio of 2 subscribers to 1 IP 
> address (to give the subscribers the most possible ports), an ISPs requirement 
> for public addresses for those subscribers halves. What are they going to do 
> with those excess addresses? If they sell them, then I agree, the value will 
> drop.
> 
> Consider Telstra with 2.4 million wired broadband residential customers, which I 
> assume all have individual public IP addresses. In theory with a 2 to 1 CGN 
> deployment, they now have 1.2 million excess addresses. If they kept 300 000 for 
> their own future use, they could sell the remaining 900 000.
> 
> I think it would be best to minimise the number of subscribers to IP addresses 
> in a CGN deployment, which why I'd deploy 2:1. However, it seems common for 
> people to talk about 8:1 or even 16:1. If Telstra chose to adopt 8:1, they'd 
> "free up" 2.1 million addresses. In addition to being able to sell 
> them, another financial incentive to giving them up would be a reduction in RIR 
> fees. 
> 
> I've wondered in the past if there is or should be an APNIC policy to 
> reclaim addresses that become unused when an ISP deploys CGN. 
> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Daniel Pearson <dpearson at pingco.com.au>
>>  Sender: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
>>  Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:58:53 
>>  To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>  Subject: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  AusNOG mailing list
>>  AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>  http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> 
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  AusNOG mailing list
>>  AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>  http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>