[ipv6-wg] Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
Mikael Abrahamsson swmike at swm.pp.se
Fri Nov 25 13:11:34 CET 2016
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of > Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to > receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an > agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that > would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if > this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so > successful. I don't see a connection between a CoC for CGN sizing would have an impact on IPv6 deployment. A CoC that spells out that IPv6 is important and that the government expects this, and tells all the upper management of ISPs that this is the case, that might help. I think the reason Belgium is so big on IPv6 is that (and I might be wrong, but this is the impression I have from talking to people with insight) is that PPPoE is widely used, ISPs provide gateways that people use in homesm and there are a few large players. This means it's fairly easy to deploy IPv6. > As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and > workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you Well, 16:1 makes a lot of sense, I'd say sensible is somewhere between 16:1 and 64:1. Port ranges should be used to make logging less of a problem, and that means you allocate 1024, 2048 or 4096 ports per user as a block at once. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]