North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
Thus spake "Paul Vixie" <email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org ("Stephen Sprunk") writes:> isc is multihomed, so it's difficult to imagine what isp we could have > taken address space from then, or now.
I'm not experienced with the 1000-person companies; the work I've done is for companies 20 to 100 times that size, so maybe my perception is skewed.Some fear that you would more likely just generate a ULA, use that internally, and NAT at the borders. Or maybe you'd stick with IPv4 RFC1918 space internally and NAT to IPv6 PA space at your borders.the internet endpoint type trend is toward SOHO and dsl/cable, and the provider trend is toward gigantic multinational. companies who build their own networks tend to find that the cheapest interoffice backhaul is IP-in-IP VPN's. thus is the old model of a 1000-person company buying a T1 transit connection moving toward the margins.
SoHo and residential users are definitely a growing percentage of the Internet connection count, but I think they're still a minority of _hosts_ which have Internet connectivity. Enterprises can have tens or hundreds of thousands of hosts behind a single T1 or T3, and may expose only a handful of PA addresses due to NAT. Large universities are similar, except legacy allocations mean they usually don't need NAT.
I've also seen a strong tendency in enterprises to backhaul even external traffic on IP VPNs, so that even users with a "local" Internet pipe have to go through the corporate firewalls to reach the outside world (if that's even allowed).
So are you saying that if ISC had not gotten a legacy PI allocation, you wouldn't be using IPv6? Or that you wouldn't be able to design your network the way you'd want to, but would still use IPv6 anyways?as i continue to research my own premises, i find that the style of internetworking practiced at isc, which precludes PA space due to multihoming and due to possible renumbering penalties,
I've run into very few enterprises that know they'd even be allowed to join an IX, much less actually interested in doing so. They'd rather pay one or two companies to drop big, fat pipes into their datacenter and collect on SLAs when something goes wrong. Very few, even in the Fortune 100, have the staff to handle their own BGP configs and keep things running smoothly. Humans cost more money than they'd probably save on transit, and the money often comes out of different pockets anyways.is becoming quite rare as a percentage of the total number of network owners and the total number of endpoints thus interconnected. it's sad but it's true and it gives cause to ponder the future of enabling technologies like internet exchange points.
I see IXes (IXen?) as a solution for providers, not end-sites. With the relatively lax IPv6 PI policies for providers, the threat to IXes is minimal.
this may yet lead to a mechanism for qualifying multihomed network buildersWe'll see what the reaction is on PPML. Based on the number of origin-only ASes in yesterday's Routing Table Report, we should expect to see about 16k prefixes from multihomed end-sites if adoption in IPv6 matches that in IPv4.
on the other hand, transit-provider lock-in is not officially recognized asAgreed.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking