Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

[Jens Link <lists () quux de>]

Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> writes:

> > for NAT. Enterprises of non-trivial size will likely use RFC4193 (and I
> > fear we will notice PRNG returning 0 very often) and then NAT it to
> > provider provided public IP addresses. 
> Why on earth would you do that? Why not just put the provider-assigned
> addresses on the interfaces along side the ULA addresses? Using ULA
> in that manner is horribly kludgy and utterly unnecessary.

To state the obvious: People are stupid. 

> > This is to facilitate easy and cheap way to change provider. Getting PI
> > address is even harder now, as at least RIPE will verify that you are
> > multihomed, while many enterprises don't intent to be, they just need low
> > cost ability to change operator.
> Why is that easier/cheaper than changing your RAs to the new provider and
> letting the old provider addresses time out?

Well it's not cheaper but using NAT (and multiple NAT) leads to job
security as nobody else will understand the network. BTST.

Jens
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Foelderichstr. 40   | 13595 Berlin, Germany    | +49-151-18721264     |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink () guug de | -------------------  | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------