[ipv6-wg] Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
irfan irfanccie at hotmail.co.uk
Fri Nov 25 19:48:19 CET 2016
Please unsubscribe me from this WG Thanks. > On 25 Nov 2016, at 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote: > > 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 ]