misunderstanding scale

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Tue Mar 25 05:31:17 UTC 2014

In message <f0ca01f52b274d13ad84dbfe6aad2bd1 at BN1PR04MB250.namprd04.prod.outlook
.com>, Alexander Lopez writes:
> > 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.

My bet is the number needing more that a single /64 will exceed the number
needing just a /64.  Most phones really need two /64 for tethering and
currently there are lots of kludges to work around only one being available.

> 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?

How many would multi-home if it was a standard feature built into
all CPE devices? Cable + DSL?  Homenet is designing for all home
CPE devices to support multi-homing.  Plug in CPE from ISP 1 and
CPE from ISP 2 and it will just work.

How many don't get a realistic choice of multiple addresses?

> 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

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org

More information about the NANOG mailing list