[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

[Michael Andreas Schipp]

A /22 gives 1022 usable IPv4 address

CGN @ 1000 ports (64K per IP not using the well know ports) per user give 65408 subscribers - so is a /22 really that useless? I think not.

Note 1000 ports seems to be a safe number that we at A10 have used.  However in some GEOs we have used as low as 100 ports per user (due the whole county having next to no IPv4 space)

Yes the world as a whole should move to IPv6 - I think everybody agrees with that.

I see the process as;
Use CGN where it makes sense
Dual Stack
Use DS Lite, 6RD and MAP-E/I where you can (keeping in mind you need CPE's that can support that)
Native IPv6

Will we be keeping and supporting IPv4 for a VERY long time in my opinion.

Thank you,

Michael A Schipp
Regional SE Manager ANZ
A10 Networks

Direct: 0402 907 928
Email: mschipp at a10networks.com<mailto:mschipp at a10networks.com>
WEB:     www.a10networks.com<http://www.a10networks.com/>
Twitter: @maschipp


From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Brooks
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013 11:27 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

On 1/03/2013 11:08 PM, Damian Guppy wrote:
The apnic policy is just trying to make entry to the market cheaper for the small players, then they can try and be shrewed with their pittence or start making enough to afford a larger range.

Actually, I think the theory is that with a /22, a new entrant can use CGNAT and oversubscribe it 100:1 or whatever ratio turns out to be optimum and support a significant number of subscribers, without having to have a larger range at all.
It might work if you pick your target customers carefully.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130301/31c7cc33/attachment.html>