Owen DeLong <o...@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: jensl...@guug.de | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------