[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

that's not really relevant to the scenario, and if business needs
dictate better/more-reliable internet (all your transactions in the
remote location depend upon the interwebz) then... 1500 isn't all that
much really.

My point really is, there are quite a few folks multihomed today, the
trend isn't downward sloping on that, or wasn't last I looked.

> 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.

sure, allstate's an extreme example and they chose a different
architecture, but my point again is that multihoming is increasing,
and dependence upon the network is increasing. we ought to plan for
that, not box people into less capable solutions. (or remove options
they may chose to use because they better fit their business needs)

-Chris

>>>
>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>