[arin-ppml] CGN multiplier was: RE: Input on an article by Geoff Huston (potentially/myopically off-topic addendum)

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 9/15/11 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Using NAT66 to enable at least one form of provider portability
>>> that is commonly used today in the IPv4 world and that most
>>> people are familiar with is an important step forward. Just
>>> because IPv6 has more addresses, doesn't automatically fix the
>>> provider portability issue.
>> I agree with that statement; namely, easy renumbering still is an
>> oxymoron. But RFC6296 is more than NAT66 and not enough to provide a
>> working multihoming solution.
>>
> But the barrier to getting PI in IPv6 is so low that I really think PI is preferable
> to NAT.

And how low is the barrier to getting your PI space routed by your local 
telco or cable ISP?

My guess is that PI is going to be a great place to get unique space to 
put on "your" side of your NAT66.

Matthew Kaufman