[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Owen DeLong]

> My contention, which has at least been corroborated by a couple of
> people from larger enterprises, is that renumbering actually is a
> complex task and will remain so for the foreseeable future given the
> current IPv6 architecture.  For this reason, if IPv6 is going to be
> deployed in significant amounts, we will be exactly repeating the
> history of IPv4 address allocations with the folks getting /19s and / 20s
> today being the equivalent of folks getting class As in pre- history.
> Assertions about the huge number of /48s or /45s are  irrelevant given
> medium size telcos are getting /19s and /20s.  As  such, it would seem to
> be prudent to be somewhat conservative in  allocations.
> 
Your enterprise does not have to be particularly large for renumbering to
be a complex task.  Imagine even a small company with a couple of hundred
customers who connect over VPN tunnels.  Now, imagine renumbering all of
the virtual addresses used on the client side and all of the tunnel end
point addresses for that series of customer connections in order to
switch providers.

That can happen to a relatively small business and still be quite an
economic issue.  Especially if it occurs as a result of a vendor-viability
issue with the upstream provider, thus producing potentially short notice.


Owen



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050514/030d3cac/attachment.sig>