nanog mailing list archives
Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:02:05 +0200
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:35:48 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
Or IT isn't buying the 'renumbering is easy' argument, for any non-trivial size company even figuring how where exactly can be IP addresses punched out statically would be expensive and long process. If you are pushing for customer to use your PA in their LAN, I'm guessing net-result is you should never reclaim those addresses after customer leaves, since chances are, some customers won't renumber, but will 1:1 NAT your PA to new operator PA, and your next customer with this block will complain about reachability problems to this other customer.
In all fairness, I'm not so sure, as operators, that we want to push our PA space as assignments to customers in IPv6- land. Yes, it makes sense, but then again, it's not hard for enterprises to obtain PI space from $favorite_registry. Yes, that will pollute the routing table and potentially mean your customer can run away from you at any time. But IPv6 is so vast, and as you rightly point out, Saku, it might be unreasonable for us to expect the enterprise to renumber when they churn and take their business elsewhere. It, physically, is a lot of work. So while I have lots of /56's and /48's to assign to customers from my /32, I'm not sure I want to actively encourage it, unless as a last resort. Of course, assigning this to broadband users makes more sense, as use is generally temporary and well controlled. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- RE: misunderstanding scale, (continued)
- RE: misunderstanding scale Naslund, Steve (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Owen DeLong (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Matthias Leisi (Mar 27)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Chip Marshall (Mar 27)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Barry Shein (Mar 27)
- Re: misunderstanding scale, SMTP edition John Levine (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale, SMTP edition Jack Bates (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale, SMTP edition Lamar Owen (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale, SMTP edition Tony Finch (Mar 26)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Saku Ytti (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Mark Tinka (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Mark Andrews (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Mark Tinka (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Nick Hilliard (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.) Mark Andrews (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Nick Hilliard (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale bmanning (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Mark Andrews (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Matt Palmer (Mar 23)
- RE: misunderstanding scale Ray (Mar 23)
- Re: misunderstanding scale Mark Tinka (Mar 23)