Hi, dear mailing list.

On behalf of a medium retail ETTH ISP here in central Russia, I'd like to share a piece of CGNAT44 expirience with you.

We are using it right from the start of the business for the 95% of our subscribers on their way to Internet.

We've tried out several application approaches on this matter: single public IP with round robin port mapping to a 10.a.b/24 full of subscribers; random IP with session long port-block allocation of various ranges (64-1024 portblocks allocated per user at a time), while maintaining NAT behaviour requirements for TCP/UDP as per RFCs (major NAT traversal tricks as well).

Number of ports required for a single user may vary in scale dramatically - simple websurfing takes 50-100 ports, while heavy p2p application can easily take 10K active connections, this 

Optimal port utilisation may be reached with up to 350-400 active users per public IP address without significant service degradation.

This gives us around 2.5-3.5M IPv4 addresses required for a 1B users surfing internet and doing some serious p2p... So... an ISP can survive with this shortage and provide a "static public IP address" as a VAS - as it seems to me =)

What bothers us is that it's still quiet difficult to get even as little as /21 IPv4 address as an additional allocation in case if we want to launch a new regional network...

By the way - just while this discussion lasts, I've recieved 2 emails asking if we want to buy or sell any internet numbers =)

05.06.2012 2:22 пользователь "Lu Heng" <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> написал:
>
> Hi Colleuages:
>
> Today I come across an very interesting article which I'd like to
> share with your guys and see what your guys think about it.
>
> http://ilia.ws/archives/236-ISP-Popularity-by-Domain-Count.html
>
> If what said in the article was true(which it should be as all the
> data from the article should be public data), if all the cable network
> start to use NAT, just in sense of domains, we might have IP supply
> for few more decades.
>
> And it would be very interesting if someone from Ripe NCC can share
> with us what is the most IP consuming business in the planet.
>
> In which, is that service can use NAT in sometime future?
>
> I talked to an UK telecom provider one day in a ripe lunch, he told me
> that their network is already partly using NAT(sorry I didn't remember
> his name, but I am sure he is on this mailing list), and he only need
> a /21 for entire network.
>
> And another thing was, I heard from one of my friend in the Apanic
> meeting, that someone is selling entire A class there for 10 USD/ IP.
>
> We don't know if there is already some successful story there
> regarding IP sales. But seems to me, based on what happened on Asian
> now, at least in China, as I heard from many of my colleagues there,
> there was no real shortage there at this time.
>
> No body goes bankrupt because of no IPs left.
>
> So that raise an interesting point, since 60% of the world domain is
> in fact wasted, is that the same story with IP usage. After all, we
> allocated almost half of the pool before RIR even exists.
>
> The current way of IP distributing results a very noneffective way of
> "past business" IP usage as well(e.g. someone changed their business
> from cable business to an enterprise business, of course that guy will
> not return Ripe NCC his additional free 2 M IPs).
>
> So when their is a real market for IPv4, and all the latency space
> come to sale, will we last much much longer than everybody expected?
>
> We our-self have few dozen of enterprise customers, and they are
> already paying 3-5 USD/ month /IP for years, as asking them to
> re-program their software and re-provision their business into IPv6,
> the cost will be enormous for them, and one more thing is, most
> software writers don't really like IPv6, as it is hard to remember and
> hard to type(it will be a whole lot easier if you just remember the IP
> and type it every time you have to do so, rather than copy paste, we
> all know the reason). So, even IP price eventually raise to 30USD even
> 50USD, it is still very hard for them to switch it over to IPv6 as
> long as they don't have IPv6-only client, because they are paying this
> amount of money for IP per year anyway.
>
> Another thing is, one thing aside from RIR meetings and ISP meetings,
> we didn't really hear a lot about IPv6. IPv6 come into developer is
> still something new and interesting, and one guy I talked in the IPv6
> workshop in the Ripe64, a software developer for an Austria local
> company, who don't even know that IPv6 has been around for almost a
> decades.
>
> Since Ripe is almost finish it's public pools, my last question is,
> will one day all the wasted IP address being effectively picked up
> because of existing marketplace, and that market place will last us
> another 3 decades before we really going to IPv6 ear?
>
> Go Ipv6
> Pro
> Last forever(this reason doesn't really come into play because it this
> can be a reason convince enterprise customer then it should be done 10
> years ago.).
> unlimited amount of address space.(same as above)
> cost reasons.
> con:
> need new router new config new practice and testing almost every part
> of the business(from software to hardware).
> very hard to remember and write.
> (welcome to add more on this list)
>
> IPv4
> pro
> you know how it works
> it works for all of our business life.
> it is easy to remember
> con
> cost reasons.
>
> But let's look at how much we are paying Ripe NCC now, for large ones,
> they are paying more coffee in the office than they are paying Ripe
> thing. So does that really hurts them when they pay 20USD per IP, look
> at their margin and their current costs structure, I would say for
> most business, it should be fine.
>
> If there is enough supply in the market for next decades, and keep the
> price well below 50 USD per IP, I believe 99% of business would accept
> this price and go on with their life.
>
> History already tell us most of us don't look too far to the
> future(otherwise we are already there).
>
> Hope my a bit of 2 cents can get more interesting thoughts come around.
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
> message and including the text of the transmission received.
>
> ----
> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
>
> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.