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

["Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <[e-mail]>]

On 4/3/13 4:52 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Le 2013-04-03 00:03, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) a écrit :
>> [Senthil] Going by the same standards of using the entire available
>> port range, you should require 15259 addresses. But the point is the
>> cost of static allocation to dynamic allocation is 10:1, which is
>> huge and given the fact there is only so little address space that is
>> available, it should be used efficiently. Just by looking at that
>> calculation, it seems amply clear that dynamic is preferred over
>> static, as you have noted.
>
>My reaction was different. I was thinking "only 10:1, this is pretty
>good for static."

Why so? With the same 15259 addresses that I have, I could add 10 times
more subscribers,
I can add up to 10Million subscribers as per this example, that is 10
times more 
revenue. That was also the revenue lost, why is it good for business?
>
>> You spread the cost of 1.36TB across a 1,000,000 subscribers assuming
>> cost of 1TB is US$80, we come to 0.00008 cents/subscriber/day or
>> 0.024 cents/subscriber/month. Even with ASCII logging requirements
>> this doesn¹t sound like a mammoth cost. Sure, there are other
>> operating expenses involved
>
>The raw cost of storage is probably insignificant compared to those
>"other operating expenses"...

Can you put a dollar value to the significant other operating expenses?
Does it offset the 10x revenue generated by doing dynamic
port allocation and logging ? I think the key would be what the business
proposition is at the end of the day.

Senthil

>
>Simon
>_______________________________________________
>Behave mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave