IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5EE21F8F61 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 03:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6rzMoT6Tkwc for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D3A21F8F53 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 03:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7308; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368614905; x=1369824505; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=flNRlGOMa0yvAJPONPoDqROgW45uzcc28XyHZRj0S08=; b=fX85AQLQhuSnpzfXJLUZsNvI4IESit7PGQoEZERI9hV32KgWPbTHa+dH yypC14O/8JqrbdOBIC9QgVaL4lDv5GSe+xJ2CKSleVTYtPOnJ5WLK60bS xv9OzBjXslvV5UxvdEBmJ98hqoD19ICusb/PDeythzCCSfOXaCICot1Rn 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFACtnk1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagwc3wFF5FnSCIAEBBAEBAWsJAhACAQgSKQQHJwsUAw4CBA4FiAwMvHkEjxoEB4J0YQOIZ45NkT2BV4E4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,677,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="210711164"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2013 10:48:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4FAmOhC027981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 May 2013 10:48:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.154]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:48:24 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOTK9jaOM7bqd790Smts+64Be8w5kDWX2AgAKoHACAABh6pw==
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:48:23 +0000
Message-ID: <1D535049-BEFF-4805-A0AD-8C0D55DA8199@cisco.com>
References: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B1167BCA4@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <5190D29B.9070805@viagenie.ca>, <51930D20.2050809@nttv6.jp>
In-Reply-To: <51930D20.2050809@nttv6.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1D535049BEFF4805A0AD8C0D55DA8199ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:48:30 -0000

the achievable address sharing ratio for dynamic is 10x that of static.

I find this to be quite higher than what I would consider generically speaking.

Perhaps, we need to differentiate between mobile and wireline deployments.

Irrespective of that, I wonder the usefulness of static vs dynamic ratio, and how it could help in any CGN deployment. The question many deployments often ask is about the CGN pool size(s). We should qualify and quantify the answer to that question in this draft.

Cheers,
Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On May 15, 2013, at 12:20 AM, "kaname nishizuka" <kaname@nttv6.jp<mailto:kaname@nttv6.jp>> wrote:


Yes. Based on the port consumption trend, we figured out that the sharing ratio of dynamic assignment is 10 times of that of static assignment.
However, I'm not intended to conclude that which is preferable in the draft.
That depends on the provider's choice.
I would carefully remove confusing representations.

regards,
kaname

(2013/05/13 20:46), Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2013-05-09 14:19, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit :
An ISP is running out of addresses. It considers two options: static CGN
vs dynamic CGN. Static allows, let's say, 32 users per public IPv4
address. Given the 1:10 figure from the draft, it follows that dynamic
allows 320 users per public IPv4 address.

1:32 (dynamic assignment) on top of 1:10 (static assignment)? Did you
intend to nest?

Could you please clarify?

The draft says that the achievable address sharing ratio for dynamic is 10x that of static. So if you have 1:32 for static (a made up figure), it follows you would have 1:320 for dynamic.

Simon
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org<mailto:Behave@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave


--
----
Kaname Nishizuka
Innovative Architecture Center
NTT Communications Corporation
+81-50-3812-4704

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email