[170223] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Mar 25 02:33:48 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <f0ca01f52b274d13ad84dbfe6aad2bd1@BN1PR04MB250.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:32:11 -0700
To: Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez@opsys.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:12 PM, Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez@opsys.com> =
wrote:
>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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 =
addressing
>> which is readily available.
> <rant>
> Yes but the number of people needing just a /64 will far outnumber the =
one requesting a /48.
Businesses? I doubt it.
> I would say that the majority of users today and for the future will =
not require a /48, but will simply use the allocation given to them by =
their upstream.=20
Perhaps, but I don=92t see that being just one subnet for anyone at all =
likely to have a concern about renumbering.
> Many today do not multi-home and how many SMB customers just use a =
single Public IP behind a NAT device?
Those wouldn=92t really have a problem renumbering their network.
> It is easy for us on this list to use or request PIA, but what about =
the 10 person office?
I=92ve done so for several. It=92s not hard or expensive.
Owen
