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
>
>
>

Reply via email to