[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:49 AM,  <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
>> because I have 2 locations, one in NYC one in SFO. Running a
>> private network link between them is more expensive than 2
>> commodity internet links, I can't (today) expect longer than
>> a /48 to pass through inter-AS boundaries... so I need (now)
>> a /47.
>
> Why would you want to run a national network when you have
> only two locations?

I don't, I want to multi-home both of my sites... I have a regulatory
reason to want better assurance that my sites are up and reachable.

>
>> Look at Allstate Insurance that had, at last count +10k
>> remote sites... a /48 is a single SITE, not a single ORGANIZATION.
>
> Why would an insurance company want to run a national network?

they don't, they want to use commodity network services in region,
they also want (potentially) to multihome some portions of these
mythical 10k sites.

>> Note that none of the above colors the discussion about NAT
>> nor internal numbering schemes related to ULA*, I was simply
>> pointing out that it's entirely inaccurate to believe that
>> 'Few Organizations will need more than a single /48'.
>
> Those of us who believe that few organizations will need more
> than a single /48 expect that most organizations will stick
> to their knitting and buy network services from an ISP. In other
> words the ones that need more than a single /48 will not be
> interested in talking to ARIN.

huh? if you need more than a single PA /48 you'll have to talk to some
RIR, won't you?
(maybe I misread the above paragraph)

-Chris