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