On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Stan Barber <s...@academ.com> wrote: > 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
how are nat and ipv6 and multihoming related here? (also 'that has a primary layer 3 protocol as ipv6' ... that's a LONG ways off) -chris > 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 > > >
