North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re:IPV6 renumbering painless?]]
I think this is important point that needs to be called out explicitly.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If we reword the last sentence to include the use of ULA addresses, to be like:On 19-nov-04, at 17:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:these organizations tend to have multiple sites (as you indicate above) but they generally do not have real connectivity between those sites. This means a single large prefix won't do them much good, and basically they're no different than a bunch of smaller single-site organizations.
So a single, globally routable large address block is of little use
to such an organization, unless they get to announce more specifics
all over the place.
This seems to imply several things:
- when having lots of sites, you typically want to obtain local
Internet connectivity, because transporting all the traffic over
links or VPNs is a pretty heavy business
* though at least the smallest sites are also likely to be solely
obtain their connectivity using VPNs through centralized
- you don't want to backhaul all the traffic in the internal network
/ VPNs, so you'll either need to announce a lot of more specifics
or use IP addresses from local internet providers
- giving those big enterprises globally routable PI will make it much
more lucrative for them to request allowing the more specifics from
their upstreams, etc., thus getting us to the more specific mess.
Therefore, if we'd like to to prevent the more specific multihoming/traffic engineering mess we have with v4, most of those big enterprises don't really seem to need globally routable PI space, provided that they can already use ULAs if they want.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings