Ok. Let's get back to some basics to be sure we are talking about the same things.
First, do you believe that a residential customer of an ISP will get an IPv6 /56 assigned for use in their home? Do you believe that residential customer will often choose to multihome using that prefix? Do you believe that on an Internet that has its primary layer 3 protocol is IPv6 that a residential customer will still desire to do NAT for reaching IPv6 destinations? I am looking forward to your response. On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Joel made a remarkable assertion >>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed >>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6. 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. > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Stan Barber <s...@academ.com> wrote: >> I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was >> trying to say that the rate of increase in non-NATed single-homing >> would increase faster than multihoming. I guess I was not very clear. > > > Hi Stan, > > Your logic still escapes me. Network-wise there's not a lot of > difference between a single-homed IPv4 /32 and a single-homed IPv6 > /56. Host-wise there may be a difference but why would you expect that > to impact networks? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
