> 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.
It would appear that they have only used some of it and are sitting on plenty of unallocated IP's. I agree that implementing NAT at this late stage is not suitable and as previously stated numerous times, IPv6 is the answer. > 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. It would not have been as high a cost if it was done much earlier. > 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 have already provided an example of a very large network that is successfully issuing private IP's to hundreds of thousands of customers. > 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". There is a lot of generalisation going on here for all parties involved. AFAIK no one here has the experience to provide the finite details and when it comes down to private companies that would not be permitted to anyway. So we are left with a level of generalisation. I don't need to know the specifics when I can see that it is possible. I never suggested that "anyone" can do it but it is reasonable to expect that a university, for example, with all of its resources can find a way. > You seem to be answering the previous poster's question with "No". An answer of "anyone" does not equal "No". I'm not sure how that can be any clearer. > Define "needs an address". You're saying the univ's don't "need" > their address space. So who does? What's the criteria? Now who is generalising? I did not say uni's don't need there address space. I said that there appears to be many that don't need all of it and we have an example in this topic of one university that has quite a lot spare. Interestingly no one appears to be taking that into account here and instead is taking the viewpoint that the poor universities shouldn't have to make any cuts or suffer in any form. James. ~ 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
