North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Wed Jul 25 11:38:34 2007


On Jul 25, 2007, at 2:13 PM, John Curran wrote:
I believe that we'll see extensive use of NAT for client-only
services (just look at many broadband residential services
today), but that won't help business customers who want
a block for the DMZ servers.

Well yes. However there are likely to be far fewer devices in the DMZ that need numbers.

In addition, renumbering DMZ servers is a whole lot less painful than renumbering your entire network, so perhaps PA space would be more acceptable. I can easily imagine a world where ISPs migrate their internal infrastructure that is currently numbering in IPv4 space over to IPv6, thereby freeing up a large amount of IPv4 space that could then be used for customer DMZ servers.

My point is that once you associate a non-trivial cost per address, people will tend to use address space more efficiently (either by reusing space more efficiently or reducing the amount of space they need). As such address consumption rates will change.

They'll pay, but the question
is whether they can afford the actual global cost of routing
table entry, or whether it will even be accountable.

It never has been. Not sure why this would change. As we've seen in the past, it's much easier to do prefix length filters when it becomes an issue.

can figure out the cost of "obtaining" IPv4 blocks, but the
imputed cost of injecting these random blocks into the DFZ
routing table is harder to measure and inflicted on everyone