> On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you > change an upstream provider. > > > > Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of > private address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has allowed many to enjoy a simple > network addressing scheme. > > This is easily and better solved in IPv6 using provider independent addressing > which is readily available. <rant> Yes but the number of people needing just a /64 will far outnumber the one requesting a /48.
I would say that the majority of users today and for the future will not require a /48, but will simply use the allocation given to them by their upstream. Many today do not multi-home and how many SMB customers just use a single Public IP behind a NAT device? It is easy for us on this list to use or request PIA, but what about the 10 person office? It is late and I am just rambling, but even with DHCP(4and6) changing IP networks is not a trivial thing. Not hard, but it will require a lot more planning than what many do today of simply changing the WAN IP address and some records in the DNS (if needed) <OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay> I am not saying anything that is new to members of this group, I guess I am just venting a bit of frustration. </OldGuyComplainingAboutHowGoodThingsWereBackInTheDay> </rant> > > > Ipv6 requires a complete reeducation of they way we look at routing and > the core of the network. > > I wouldn't say complete, but significant. > > Owen
