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

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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

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