[arin-ppml] The role of NAT in IPv6
christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Tue Apr 6 02:27:45 EDT 2010
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Gary Giesen <ggiesen at akn.ca> wrote:
> Because 65535 subnets isn't enough?
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. Now, look at a business
like 'the Limited' who has (at last count) +1200 remote/disconnected
sites... they could need a much larger block than a /48, if they
wanted the benefits of easy multihoming/no-renumbering.
Look at Allstate Insurance that had, at last count +10k remote
sites... a /48 is a single SITE, not a single ORGANIZATION.
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'.
> On 10-04-06 2:14 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow at gmail.com>
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at akn.ca> wrote:
>>> Just a clarification on my comments, that's PI GUA space... Few
>>> organizations will need more than a single /48, which would at least
>> as a clarification, any end site organization with more than a single
>> office location is prone to want more than a single /48.
>>> contain the number of prefixes being advertised. And with most ISP's
>>> (LIR's) only requiring a single prefix for their own PA space, we should
>>> a nice reset in table size, allowing hardware to catch up with routing
>>> table growth.
>>> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 18:05 -0400, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
>>>> If that's a concern, then get GUA space out of the gate and you'll never
>>>> renumber again. I believe GUA should be made cheap and relatively easy
>>>> to get (instead of something using something like ULA and NATing it).
>>>> While some will argue this will lead to an explosion in the v6 routing
>>>> table (and there is definitely merit to their argument), the aggregation
>>>> gains from people who don't need the capability (especially residential
>>>> customers) should more than offset it in the near term, buying time for
>>>> for the technology to progress and offer us more TCAM slots to deal with
>>>> it in the longer term.
>>>> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 17:54 -0400, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>>> Gary T. Giesen wrote:
>>>>>> IMHO it's better to get people used to having no NAT at all (since
>>>>>> they're getting used to a new protocol anyways)...
>>>>> Please explain how you intend to eliminate manual renumbering for
>>>>> corporate internal networks every time they change ISPs.
>>>>> (And note that RA and even DHCP6 don't fix all the manual setup of
>>>>> things like "what is the address of the intranet web server".)
>>>>> There is a real cost to this, and the cost of a NAT device is pretty
>>>>> much paid off the first or second time you're forced to renumber.
>>>>> Matthew Kaufman
>>>> 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:
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML