[123931] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stan Barber)
Thu Mar 18 11:09:16 2010
From: Stan Barber <sob@academ.com>
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1003050524k76837083t9620b397da37c99e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:07:25 -0500
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was =
trying to say that the rate of increase in non-NATed single-homing would =
increase faster than multihoming. I guess I was not very clear.
Here is the basis for my assumptions since they are not clear:
1. Almost all home users (not businesses) that are connected to the =
Internet today via IPv4 are behind some kind of NAT box. In some cases, =
two NATs (one provided by the home user's router and one provided by =
some kind of ISP). There is no need for this using IPv6 to communicate =
with other IPv6 sites.
2. Almost all home users referenced above are not multi-homed today on =
IPv4. I am having a hard time believing that they will want to change =
that under IPv6. However, someone may have a case I have not thought =
about.
Ergo, I believe their will be an increase in non-multihomed non-NATed =
endpoints as IPv6 becomes the standard way folks connect.=20
Now, one thing that could negatively impact this would be providers that =
insist on providing some kind of IPv6/IPv6 NAT. Creating that kind of =
walled garden for IPv6 in the long term does not make alot of sense to =
me, but I am very interested in other points of view on that.=20
On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> =
wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do =
today?
>>=20
>> We do?
>>=20
>> Why do we expect this?
>=20
> David,
>=20
> Well, I don't know that "we" do, but Joel made a remarkable assertion
> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6. I wondered about his
> reasoning. Stan then offered the surprising clarification that a
> reduction in the use of NAT would naturally result in a reduction of
> multihoming.
>=20
> Regards,
> Bill
>=20
> --=20
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>=20
