[128184] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jens Link)
Mon Jul 26 00:11:07 2010
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jens Link <lists@quux.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:09:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <E57E67C6-1E6D-4B67-A832-E0A5D81AFEC0@delong.com> (Owen DeLong's
message of "Sat\, 24 Jul 2010 02\:13\:18 -0700")
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> writes:
>> for NAT. Enterprises of non-trivial size will likely use RFC4193 (and I
>> fear we will notice PRNG returning 0 very often) and then NAT it to
>> provider provided public IP addresses.
>>
> Why on earth would you do that? Why not just put the provider-assigned
> addresses on the interfaces along side the ULA addresses? Using ULA
> in that manner is horribly kludgy and utterly unnecessary.
To state the obvious: People are stupid.
>> This is to facilitate easy and cheap way to change provider. Getting PI
>> address is even harder now, as at least RIPE will verify that you are
>> multihomed, while many enterprises don't intent to be, they just need low
>> cost ability to change operator.
>>
> Why is that easier/cheaper than changing your RAs to the new provider and
> letting the old provider addresses time out?
Well it's not cheaper but using NAT (and multiple NAT) leads to job
security as nobody else will understand the network. BTST.
Jens
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@guug.de | ------------------- |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
