[Bp_ipv6] Can we do the math? ( was [MEAC ICANN] Fwd: Interesting IPv6 metrics)

Carlos M. Martinez carlos at lacnic.net
Fri Aug 26 11:13:33 EDT 2016


Hello all,

we at LACNIC have developed an economic model based on similar 
assumptions. We have on online interface you can play with, although 
it’s sadly only in Spanish at this time.

You can run it through Google Translate, and it will be probably still 
usable. The interactive model is here: 
[http://stats.labs.lacnic.net/PROYECTOCAF/modelo/]

Our LACNIC-CAF report (which was referenced in this mailing list a while 
ago) describes the model in detail and the report itself is available in 
English here: 
[http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/wp-content/caf-lacnic/CAF-LACNIC-IPv6-Deployment-Social-Economic-Development-in-LAC.pdf]

Maybe it’d be useful to contrast the assumptions Marco is doing in his 
analysis with the assumptions and results our consultants got. As in 
everything relating to economics there is no single truth, so if there 
are discrepancies it doesn’t mean anyone is ‘wrong’.

Warm regards,

-Carlos

Carlos M. Martinez
CTO - Gerente de Tecnología
LACNIC
On 26 Aug 2016, at 12:06, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

>>> On the predicted churn when deploying NAT444, where would a customer 
>>> go? To the other carrier that uses NAT444?
>>
>> Ha!  Assumes all carriers transition at the same time--I wish that 
>> were true!
>
> Okay, you might find the old incumbent can still provide you with 
> regular (native) IPv4. I was particularly referring to those markets 
> where 0 IPv6 is observed.
>
>>>
>>> I dunno, happy to hear other people’s thoughts on how big of a 
>>> thread NAT really is to day-to-day use of common applications and 
>>> equipment?
>>
>> My choices as an ISP are:
>> * Buy addresses. Gets very expensive very quickly.
>> * Deploy CGN. Extends the runway, but I gradually have to move all of 
>> my customers through CGNs. Maybe not as expensive as it once was, but 
>> I'm still buying boxes to rewrite headers on every single packet, 
>> which is expensive in processing power.
>> * Deploy IPv6 plus something to reach legacy IPv4. Provides IPv6 as a 
>> relief valve for anything that doesn't like CGN, plus my need to 
>> rewrite packet headers decreases over time, not increases. MAP and 
>> DS-Lite provide connectivity between IPv4 CE and IPv4 content, but 
>> only if the gateway supports it; that makes a nice transition plan, 
>> and means an IPv6-only access network in one CE life cycle. NAT444 
>> provides connectivity between IPv4 CE and IPv4 content, and requires 
>> no support on the local gateway.
>>
>> The final option is to say, "We're not growing, we don't need to do 
>> anything!" I call those cases business opportunities for competitors.
>
> Useful input
>
>> All you had to do to flush me out of lurk mode was to troll me with 
>> "CGN isn't so bad!" I'm so predictable.
>
> Thanks for that,
>
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org




More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list