using "reserved" IPv6 space

Tue Jul 17 12:53:04 UTC 2012

There's are routing and switching people and there are security people. 
And they look at things different. That, IMHO, is the root of the 
emotion on this thread. No one is actually wrong except me for stirring 
the pot as the OP. :)

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

On 7/17/2012 7:47 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I wonder who really believes there is no usage case for NAT66. Have these
> people seen non-trivial corporate networks?
>
> I'm sure many people in this list finance part of their lives with renumber
> projects costing MUSDs. For many companies just finding out where addresses
> have been punched in (your FWs, your software, partner FWs, partner
> software, configurations...) will take months, before even starting
> renumbering.
>
> If my enterprise customers don't have plan and ask my advice, I will
> recommend own PI, if they don't want (extra cost, extra clue needed) ULA
> and NAT66. If I recommend more specific from our PA, I know when they
> switch operators in few years time, some of them will decide renumbering is
> out-of-the-question[0] and will NAT my PA to new operator PA, essentially
> forcing me to never return any addresses to my free pool. I wonder if that
> is valid reason to ask more allocations?  That address was once used?
>
> More specific from our PA is fine for small offices with trivial setup,
> residential networks and few niche shops who specifically design for
> renumbering (but I guess these most often already want PI+BGP)
>
> [0] I don't want NAT66 anywhere. I won't use NAT66 anywhere. But just
> because we have new protocol, does not mean we have new set of people, who
> share my ideologies and goals about network design. Only thing I can do, is
> protect myself from problems they would cause me.
>