[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:12:35AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> It's not one ISP that customer with $$$$ has to convince, but *all* of
> them.   A customer with that much money can certainly afford to buy
> globablly routable /48, or a /32 or something.  

It's not that a smart, well run company can afford the cost up
front; they can and will do the right thing.

Rather, the worry is the company that goes down a ULA path when
they should not out of ignorance or poor planning.  Then, 5, or 10
years on when they realize the mistake look at the cost of renumbering
and compare it to the cost of buying off their ISP's.  Forced to
spend a few million dollars on renumbering over six months, or to
pay an extra $10k/month to their ISP to route the prefix, they may
well choose the latter.

Already communities of interest are choosing the same ISP for greater
SLA's.  They may not need it routed to the global Internet, but
rather you see ISP's routing these only internal to their network
and their customers.  In essence, the ULA boundry becomes the ISP,
rather than the Enterprise.  It's an interesting situation, because
it doesn't hurt the "global" routing table, but it does put much
the same pressure on the ISP's backbone devices.

We must plan for those who are short sighted, ignorant, lazy, and
simply dumb.  No, that doesn't mean making their lives easier, but
it does mean finding ways to prevent them from peeing in the pool
and making it unsuitable for all.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100322/c42a1518/attachment.sig>