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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 9/15/11 1:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.

1. The odds that the "free tunnel" service you're thinking of will be 
ready to support high-performance tunnels for every single customer of 
every single major ISP is low.

2. Tunneling is highly suboptimal.

3. If you're going to tunnel, you don't need any ISP to offer IPv6 
services except for yours. Which is actually an interesting idea... a 
new walled garden consisting of a tunnel endpoint and a bunch of v6-only 
services on the other side.

>
>> 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.

I'd much rather have my traffic stay local than send it to wherever your 
tunnel service is.

Matthew Kaufman