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

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> 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?
> 

Relatively low. In the case of IPv6, even if your direct provider won't route it, you can always
advertise it over a free tunnel.

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

I'd much rather tunnel it than NAT it. YMMV.

Owen