[111398] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Feb 5 01:40:16 2009
In-Reply-To: <200902050345.n153jcff081338@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 01:40:06 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Cc: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
>
> We already know some will need more than a /48. /48 was
> only ever described as meeting the requirements of *most*
> business and consumers.
>
so.. what businesses need is not actually 'more than one /48' but
real, useful, doable multihoming. A /48 is fine if you have only one
site, it's been used to solve 2 of 3 problems:
1) my addresses don't have to change (if I only have one site)
2) I can multihome with a single address on my devices/hosts (cause
the original v6 plan for that was just dumb)
It doesn't solve the problem of an enterprise with more than one
location/network-interconnect... we can go around this rose bush again
and again and again, but honestly, deployment of v6 happens for real
when there is a significant business reason to deploy it, and when the
real concerns of enterprises today are actually addressed.
-Chris
