Re: IP4 Space

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > > Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
> >
> > We do?
> >
> > Why do we expect this?
>
> David,
>
> Well, I don't know that "we" do, but Joel made a remarkable assertion
> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6.

A couple of months ago my then employer went to arin to get a direct v6
assignmentment. on the basis of the number of pops the resulting
assignment was a /43. It'll be a while I imagine before another prefix
is required. They like many organizations receiving direct assignments
will not in all likelyhood end up with the handful of assignments (as it
has in ipv4), because assignment number one is of sufficient size to
support their subnetting needs for quite some time. As I also said the
temptation to engage in deaggregate for traffic engineering purposes is
there.

If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are issued
sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per entity
remains small.

> I wondered about his
> reasoning. Stan then offered the surprising clarification that a
> reduction in the use of NAT would naturally result in a reduction of
> multihoming.
>
> Regards,
> Bill