[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 4/14/2010 12:09 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> 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.
>

If this is true, that you really want to speak IPv6 over BGP to
multiple providers are each of those locations, then your going to be
laying out at LEAST $1500 per month per location, for the SMALLEST
amount of bandwidth.  At least, that is my experience with sites in
the US.

This kind of network simply does not match the hypothetical
Allstate Insurance remote sites.  I've BEEN in at least one of
those Allstate sites and I didn't see any 2 T1's coming into a router. 
DSL, Cable, yeah.  But not real live BGP-capable circuits.

>>
>>> 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.
>

Good luck.  As the famous quote in Gone With The Wind went,

"askin ain't gettin"

Ted