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?]

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Fri Nov 19 06:18:24 2004

On 18-nov-04, at 18:02, Jeroen Massar wrote:

Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg seperate
offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting
an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32.
Jeroen, this is nonsense and you know it.

We've been discussing the big enterprise problem in multi6 (multihoming in ipv6) circles very extensively. At some point, I realized that the "I'm so huge I need private space" claim is false in 99% of all cases, as 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.

Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable globally routable address space just doesn't scale and there are no routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in the IP version bits, so learn to love renumbering. And again, IPv6+NAT makes no sense as NAT works much better with IPv4 and with NAT you don't really need the larger address space.

Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be
able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this
could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, not
having to send it to another place of the world themselves.
If you want to introduce geography into routing, do it right. The above "solution" is the worst of several worlds.