[154947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Soucy)
Tue Jul 17 09:07:37 2012
In-Reply-To: <50055A41.2020005@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:06:15 -0400
From: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
To: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
With all due respect to Owen, I don't share the view that everyone
should be jumping into BGP or getting an allocation from ARIN, but
that's been a long-standing debate between us.
NPT allows you to get prefixes from multiple ISPs without having to
get an allocation to coordinate routing; or in the other example,
without having to have host systems maintain multiple global prefixes
(which quickly becomes a security nightmare for auditing; a
troubleshooting nightmare for support, etc).
As far as it being costly, I think too much of the mindset on list is
the large network or ISP perspective; for the small network that NPT
is targeting, all this would happen in some "Dual WAN" multi-function
firewall appliance. Modern hardware is often powerful enough to
vastly exceed transport capacity for these networks, so the
performance "cost" is a non-issue.
All these other methods place far too much control on the host system
(and its implementation) to be ready for prime time yet; the reality
is that without NPT being widely available, we won't see 99% of small
businesses using IPv6 for a long time, so if our goal is IPv6 adoption
maybe it's time we stop the holy war on anything "NAT".
Hammer has echoed legitimate concerns and confusion that represents a
very large portion of the user base out there. Maybe we should be
asking why that is instead of telling him he doesn't understand
anything and that NAT is "evil".
--
Ray Soucy
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/
