[102572] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Feb 19 18:59:30 2008
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>, Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:56:44 PST."
<D93D0C72-12E4-416D-B1FC-789280905C66@virtualized.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:51:42 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1203465102_762P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:56:44 PST, David Conrad said:
> Does InterOp? Does HP need 2 plus a bunch of /16s? Etc. In the
> extreme, does any reasonably sized organization really _need_ more
> than a few /32s (which could be allocated out of PA space thereby
> reducing fragmentation) for their NAT gateway and public facing
> servers?
Only if you think "everybody hiding behind a NAT" is workable - in particular,
if you've got enough hosts that you're using up most of 2 /16s, you probably
have enough machines that might want an *inbound* SYN packet once in a while
that NAT isn't a really good idea. Maybe if you're a corporation where
98% of the machines really shouldn't be accessing the Internet at all *anyhow*,
but if you're someplace where "Yes, you can get to the Internet" is policy,
you shouldn't be getting into the "but we're not letting you to *all* of
the Internet, just the things NAT works with" food-fight.
--==_Exmh_1203465102_762P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHu2uOcC3lWbTT17ARAsJSAKD8JppZUZAa0dUtJ/vLYnJtCEcgHACeKbLg
1zb/38e/P7RHbr+twW0ldv0=
=8LY4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1203465102_762P--
