On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:53 PM, James Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
> They have multiple external addresses, so some can be Nat’d and some not.
> Sheesh, why is this so damn hard?  And don’t use “scale” as an excuse.
> Bigger shops have more technical people, they have bigger budgets etc.

  The fundamental question is, why should some organization which was
granted address space and has been using it for years be forced to
give it back and deploy NAT?  Keep in mind that NAT is expensive, not
just in terms of equipment but in design and installation costs, and
the tech support needed for all the things that don't work behind NAT.
 And we're doing this just to delay the migration to IPv6 a little bit
longer -- we're still going to have to do it, and soon.

  Meanwhile, freeing small blocks of address space here and there
doesn't really help the big picture, but does grow the size of the
global routing table significantly.

  So it seems like several high costs, with little practical gain.

> So, you're sure that IPv6 is unsuitable in a majority of situations for
> most organizations, but you're equally sure that conveniently unnamed
> commercial devices are able to handle the level of traffic required for
> large organizations and universities?
>
> ISP’s and the backbone providers handle more traffic than universities
> surely?

  Apples and oranges.  The closer you get to the default free zone,
the less operators care about individual nodes or small nets; it's all
about getting packets to the next large operator.  There's no state
kept for each routing decision.  You need RAM for the routing table
and that's it; routing is done in ASICs.  Turning on NAT isn't just a
matter of flipping a switch; it would require tons more RAM and
processing power.

> I don’t *know* what devices they are
> using so I can’t name them, but they are obviously using something capable.

  But you don't have any idea as to the specifics, so it is invalid to
generalize that from "X is doing something, but I don't know what" to
"anyone can do Y".

>> Can you even articulate who it is that is in need of these addresses but 
>> can't
>> get them?
>
> How is this also not blindingly obvious?  ANYONE that needs an address.

  You seem to be answering the previous poster's question with "No".

  Define "needs an address".  You're saying the univ's don't "need"
their address space.  So who does?  What's the criteria?

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to [email protected]
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Reply via email to