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

Thu Nov 18 18:22:23 UTC 2004

This is flawed in a number of points:

	1.	32 bit ASNs are coming at least as quickly as IPv6.
		(/me ducks under table now as both camps probably take
		offense)
	2.	There are currently 4 and will soon be 5 RIRs.
	3.	There are plenty of large organizations that are multihomed
		that don't have 200 locations.

Owen

--On Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:02 PM +0100 Jeroen Massar 
<jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> > For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF
>> > list in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many
>> > places' total bandwidth usage.  So why don't we all just cut *THAT*
>> > off because there's no business case to support *THAT* either? :)
>>
>> let's be clear about the remaining roadblocks.  just because some of you
>> don't like tony li or don't like what he said, doesn't make what he said
>> less true.
>
> We all *hate* Mr.Li (is there any reason to? :)
>
>> <SNIP> but for enterprises large or medium who build their own networks
>> and buy service from more than one provider and/or who peer directly,
>> they'll either have to have their own /32 or they'll use NAT.
>
> They should use NAP, NAT is the IPv4 thing, NAP is for IPv6 ;)
> Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg separate
> offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting
> an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32.
>
> Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be
> able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this
> could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, not
> having to send it to another place of the world themselves.
>
> That would really put the constraint on ASN's of course and thus: 65k*3
> = maximum of ~180k prefixes when every ASN owner did this (and they
> won't in most if not all cases).
>
> [--ot--]
>
> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:40 +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> In article <cistron.1100794375.3557.3.camel at firenze.zurich.ibm.com>,
>> Jeroen Massar  <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
>> > The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what
>> > spelling is 'in' this year?)
>> >
>> > But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the
>> > newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is
>> > of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack
>> > dealers mansion.
>>
>> [OT]
>>
>> That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world,
>> downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available
>> for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse).
>
> Thus... say a newsserver full of illegal stuff is quite illegal?
> Or that other nice example 'proxy servers', they store the data and then
> relay it. A router could be said to 'store' the data also (in registers
> for like a zillionth microsecond ;) and
>
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041118/ea5fc615/attachment.sig>