[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

[Scott Leibrand]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Leibrand
>>     
>> Ok.  I'm assuming that networks would renumber due to change ISPs a lot 
>> more often than they would need to renumber due to network growth.  I 
>> would also anticipate that any network growing larger than a /56 would 
>> qualify for an IPv6 PI /48, and would therefore only need to renumber 
>> once.  I don't think the same could be said of all networks growing 
>> beyond a /60.
>>     
>
> I think your both naieve to think that your typical corporate customer
> with a couple hundred nodes and no redundancy to the Internet is going
> to put up with being told he has to renumber his entire internal network
> when he decides his current ISP is a chuckhead and decides to go to a
> competitor.  I think said customer is going to look at the money that the
> labor hours would consume to do this, then call up Cisco and offer them
> 1/4 of that, and Cisco will happily take the money and supply a 
> double-translation NAT box that will nat IPv6.  They already have such
> things for IPv4 that allow people to do things like run their internal
> IPv4 network on the same numbers that are used for the root nameservers,
> etc.

Call me naive if you want, but I've posted before (during the ULA-C 
discussion) that I fully expect that to happen.  I just hope people 
choosing to do NATv6 will do so with ULA or PI space, not with PA space 
from their former provider (who has since reassigned it to another 
customer).

And in the case of the corporation with the NATv6 box, the whole 
discussion is moot, and it doesn't really matter to them if they get a 
/48, /56, or even a /60 of PA space from their current provider.


-Scott