who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Thu Nov 25 20:16:29 UTC 2004

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>
> On 21-nov-04, at 20:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> The point is, that these days applications such as mail and web are
> >> sufficiently heavy that you can't even run them cost effectively over
> >> dial up (wasting your employee's time costs more than the fatter
> >> line) let alone less.
>
> > That assumes the company wants their employees using web or
> > email, or that there are even humans at a site to begin with.
>
> No it doesn't, but if this is not the case, then this clause kicks in:
>
> >> if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute to the
> >> global routing table so there is no issue.  :-)

There is an issue of uniqueness.  Those hosts that can't reach the Internet
typically can talk to other hosts that can, and even multiple private
networks often link to each other.  At a minimum, statistical uniqueness is
necessary to avoid collisions between business partners even on a totally
disconnected network.

ULAs do not contribute to the global routing table unless ISPs allow them to
in violation of the draft's wording and intent.  The WG welcomes input on
how to prevent this from occurring without invoking restraint of trade
concerns.

> No, that's not what I'm interested in. What I'd like to know is how
> many big organizations backhaul their internet traffic to one or a few
> central sites, and how many connect to one or more ISPs locally at
> different sites.

I personally know of several dozen, and based on information I can't
disclose, I'd say that at least half if not two thirds of the Fortune 1000
backhaul their Internet traffic -- many of them via IPsec VPNs over the
Internet.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin