[131712] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re:_IPv6_fc00::/7_=97_Unique_local_addresses?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Nov 1 23:38:58 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <1288668202.12974.240.camel@karl>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:38:39 -1000
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay =
the RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. =
There are (probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept =
that they'll need to renumber all their devices and change all their =
configs where there are IPv6 literals. But my impression is that there =
are more people who want to minimize the costs associated with PI _and_ =
with renumbering, hence PA+ULA+NAT66. As far as I can tell, the =
cost/benefit calculations here isn't significantly different from what =
it was with IPv4 ("96 bits, no magic").=20
> Whatever; a useful side effect of the fees is that they provide a
> barrier to the uptake of PI by smaller organisations.
Are those fees that much more of a deterrent than what ISPs will charge =
to route the PI space?
> Only those who can
> justify the cost of PI (in whatever terms that make sense to them) =
will
> go that way, and that will probably not be the many millions of
> residential users, who will be quite happy to use PA.
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and less =
enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...=20
Regards,
-drc
