Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

From: John Curran (no email)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2007 - 21:44:30 EDT

  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted"

    At 5:20 PM -0700 6/1/07, Vince Fuller wrote:
    >
    >Yes, as NAT becomes ubiquitous, a larger number of private networks will
    >be behind ever smaller prefixes that are assigned to sites so the per-site
    >prefix length will decrease. The logical end state for this would be /32s.
    >In some cases, multi-homed end-sites may wish to have those /32s advertised
    >into the global routing system. If, on the other hand, those end sites were
    >to transition to ipv6, they would instead obtain "PI" /48s and advertise
    >those into the global routing system. How is the former any worse than the
    >latter?

    For multi-homed sites, none. For the vast majority of singly-homed
    end locations, the PA-based sites are all going to aggregate nicely
    whereas all those /32's are going to come from wherever someone
    can find a single unique address. No ISP is going to stop serving
    clients for inability to get new blocks, and that means that in the IPv4
    scenario you've got single /32's of indeterminate origin being routed
    by every ISP as things move towards conclusion...

    /John


  • Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD