misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sun Mar 23 19:02:05 UTC 2014
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:35:48 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Or IT isn't buying the 'renumbering is easy' argument,
> for any non-trivial size company even figuring how where
> exactly can be IP addresses punched out statically would
> be expensive and long process.
> If you are pushing for customer to use your PA in their
> LAN, I'm guessing net-result is you should never reclaim
> those addresses after customer leaves, since chances
> are, some customers won't renumber, but will 1:1 NAT
> your PA to new operator PA, and your next customer with
> this block will complain about reachability problems to
> this other customer.
In all fairness, I'm not so sure, as operators, that we want
to push our PA space as assignments to customers in IPv6-
Yes, it makes sense, but then again, it's not hard for
enterprises to obtain PI space from $favorite_registry. Yes,
that will pollute the routing table and potentially mean
your customer can run away from you at any time. But IPv6 is
so vast, and as you rightly point out, Saku, it might be
unreasonable for us to expect the enterprise to renumber
when they churn and take their business elsewhere. It,
physically, is a lot of work.
So while I have lots of /56's and /48's to assign to
customers from my /32, I'm not sure I want to actively
encourage it, unless as a last resort.
Of course, assigning this to broadband users makes more
sense, as use is generally temporary and well controlled.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the NANOG