misunderstanding scale

Alexander Lopez alex.lopez at opsys.com
Tue Mar 25 05:12:09 UTC 2014


> On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez at opsys.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you
> change an upstream provider.
> >
> > Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses,  however, the use of
> private address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has allowed many to enjoy a simple
> network addressing scheme.
> 
> This is easily and better solved in IPv6 using provider independent addressing
> which is readily available.
<rant>
Yes but the number of people needing just a /64 will far outnumber the one requesting a /48.

I would say that the majority of users today and for the future will not require a /48, but will simply use the allocation given to them by their upstream. 

Many today do not multi-home and how many SMB customers just use a single Public IP behind a NAT device?

It is easy for us on this list to use or request PIA, but what about the 10 person office?

It is late and I am just rambling, but even with DHCP(4and6) changing IP networks is not a trivial thing. Not hard, but it will require a lot more planning than what many do today of simply changing the WAN IP address and some records in the DNS (if needed)

<OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay>
I am not saying anything that is new to members of this group, I guess I am just venting a bit of frustration.
</OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay>
</rant>

> 
> > Ipv6 requires a complete reeducation of they way we look at routing and
> the  core of the network.
> 
> I wouldn't say complete, but significant.
> 
> Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list