[97115] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Fri Jun 1 21:45:29 2007
In-Reply-To: <20070602002014.GB29581@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:44:30 -0400
To: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 5:20 PM -0700 6/1/07, Vince Fuller wrote:
>
>Yes, as NAT becomes ubiquitous, a larger number of private networks will
>be behind ever smaller prefixes that are assigned to sites so the per-site
>prefix length will decrease. The logical end state for this would be /32s.
>In some cases, multi-homed end-sites may wish to have those /32s advertised
>into the global routing system. If, on the other hand, those end sites were
>to transition to ipv6, they would instead obtain "PI" /48s and advertise
>those into the global routing system. How is the former any worse than the
>latter?
For multi-homed sites, none. For the vast majority of singly-homed
end locations, the PA-based sites are all going to aggregate nicely
whereas all those /32's are going to come from wherever someone
can find a single unique address. No ISP is going to stop serving
clients for inability to get new blocks, and that means that in the IPv4
scenario you've got single /32's of indeterminate origin being routed
by every ISP as things move towards conclusion...
/John
