[125520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Apr 19 10:25:43 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCC6553.4060202@zill.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:22:58 -0700
To: Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick@zill.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> I had an interesting discussion with someone from Registration =
Services at ARIN today.
>>=20
>> The big requests for IP space (the 11 organizations that hold 75% of =
all ARIN issued
>> space) do not come from the server side... They come from the =
eye-ball ISPs. The only
>> /8 issued by ARIN to an ISP, for example, was issued to a cable ISP.
>>=20
>> With this in mind, I don't think there's much to be gained here. =
Optimizing the utilization
>> of less than 25% of the address space in the face of the consumption =
rate on the 75%
>> side simply cannot yield a meaningful result. It really is akin to =
rearranging the deck
>> chairs on the Titanic.
>=20
> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to =
do
> so however, something servers cannot do - you are looking at numbers,
> not operational considerations.
>=20
> --Patrick
I'm looking at both, and, frankly, LSN (large scale NAT) is not as =
trivial as you
think. I actually talk to and work with some of these very large =
providers on
a regular basis. None of them is looking forward to deploying LSN with =
anything
but dread. The support issues, user experience, CALEA problems, and =
other
issues with LSN are huge. None of them that I am aware of are =
considering
using lSN to free up addresses to hand over to hosting providers.
Owen
