[170216] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Lopez)
Tue Mar 25 01:12:54 2014
From: Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez@opsys.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:12:09 +0000
In-Reply-To: <8914278D-7490-47FF-AF84-D82CF92DB7AE@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez@opsys.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you
> change an upstream provider.
> >
> > Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of
> private address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has allowed many to enjoy a simple
> network addressing scheme.
>=20
> This is easily and better solved in IPv6 using provider independent addre=
ssing
> which is readily available.
<rant>
Yes but the number of people needing just a /64 will far outnumber the one =
requesting a /48.
I would say that the majority of users today and for the future will not re=
quire a /48, but will simply use the allocation given to them by their upst=
ream.=20
Many today do not multi-home and how many SMB customers just use a single P=
ublic IP behind a NAT device?
It is easy for us on this list to use or request PIA, but what about the 10=
person office?
It is late and I am just rambling, but even with DHCP(4and6) changing IP ne=
tworks is not a trivial thing. Not hard, but it will require a lot more pla=
nning than what many do today of simply changing the WAN IP address and som=
e records in the DNS (if needed)
<OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay>
I am not saying anything that is new to members of this group, I guess I am=
just venting a bit of frustration.
</OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay>
</rant>
>=20
> > Ipv6 requires a complete reeducation of they way we look at routing and
> the core of the network.
>=20
> I wouldn't say complete, but significant.
>=20
> Owen
