[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

[Howard, W. Lee]

> >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. 

How is that worse than the way things are now?

If the choices are to (arguably) collapse the Internet under the
weight of unaggregable routing tables, or make enterprise networks
renumber when changing providers, which choice is preferable?

>  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.

Is that a problem?

Are you saying this proposal is unneeded, and all end users
should get PI space?

Lee