<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/May/20 18:39, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E797D475-CD70-46C9-9142-F4E1545B7B80@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloCorreo19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--><o:p> </o:p></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">There is already a nice case in Kenya with
464XLAT if I recall correctly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">There is another one with 25 million
subscribers (mobile, GPON and DSL) coming up. I’m working on
it, but can’t disclose yet more details. Unfortunately, it
is somehow paused because the Covid-19 … I should have been
there working (started in December), but can’t travel there
at the time being …</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have no doubt there are discussions about IPv6 deployment as a
line item in monthly meetings at the mobile companies. Glad to hear
you are helping some implement, but the proof is in the showing.
Until then, I'll keep harping on.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E797D475-CD70-46C9-9142-F4E1545B7B80@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regarding
the cost of CGN, it is way *<b>more</b>* expensive than
464XLAT, at least in the mobile world, no CPEs involved!
Both Android and iOS support it. People is not making the
right numbers, or they are afraid of IPv6. Even if they
need to pay for a training and consultancy to set it up,
it is still way cheaper than CGN and it is a *<b>long term</b>*
solution!!!!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">With CGN
you buy the CGN boxes, you keep resolving issues for apps
that need ALGs (which means extra cost, customers unhappy,
helpdesk). Then each CGN as it gets more ALGs, has a lower
performance, so you need to buy more CGNs. Then you also
need to buy more IPv4 addresses! And what about the cost
of logging?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">In the
case of 464XLAT, you *<b>don’t need</b>* to buy more
addresses, you can even transfer a big portion of your
existing ones and get some money back! And because your
IPv6 traffic is going to be more than 75%, it means that
you need to buy *<b>much less</b>* NAT64 boxes than CGN
ones!</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not sure if you missed it, but my message was "CGN's are bad and
expensive, NAT64 and 464XLAT are good and sensible".<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E797D475-CD70-46C9-9142-F4E1545B7B80@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">In
general I don’t advocate for regulators to get involved in
private company decisions, but the time for that is coming
if they don’t react by themselves, and I guess you don’t
want to do that in a rush!</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't disagree, but the mobile operators need an incentive other
than money to understand what's going on here.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E797D475-CD70-46C9-9142-F4E1545B7B80@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">My point
for governments and regulators is another. Goverments must
not buy anything (not just hardware, software or
connectivity, also human resources and other services)
that doesn’t support IPv6 (and not just dual-stack, it
must be able to work in an IPv6-only environment when
needed), because that’s paid with money from citizens (tax
payers), so it will be against law to do a bad
expenditure, right? Furthermore, if goverments mandate the
IPv6 support, all the ISPs will also start providing the
service to business and householders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">And
last, but not least. I can prove that if a government is
connecting many public offices (ministries,
municipalities, police, fireman, etc., etc.), in a
government network, and they do with IPv6-only (464XLAT),
they can save a lot of money.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I’ve a
case for a country in another region, I can’t disclose it
yet, but I can put the figures in the table. Just for
2.000 municipalties (still not talking about all the other
government offices …), the cost of doing with IPv4 is
about 340.00.000 USD. Which IPv6-only, including 2
government datacenters (main and backup) is about
40.000.000 euros. This is only including the equipment,
human resources, IP/ASN resources and connectivity cost –
including VoIP (not including any buldings). Of course it
need to be tailored for every case, not all the countries
have the same number of connected offices, they may have
already a DC, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">So
savings every 5 years (those figures are calculated for 5
years terms, assuming that you renew your equipment every
5 years) is 300.000.000 USD for 2.000 government connected
offices.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
While it's great for gubbermints to only purchase from
IPv6-supporting entities, I don't really care about that anymore.
Rather, let them provide an environment that encourages those who
should, to quickly drive adoptino.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>