Re: [OPSAWG] [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings,
> It's a trade-off between slop in public address consumption by the CGNs and
> multiplication of services that need to be before the second nat (intercept
> comes to mind), and the desire to limit the impact of the request.
> If, say, we had a small block, and needed to re-use it 16 times, then I
> would need 16 intercept infrastructures, and, more importantly, 16 public
> address pools (one for each CGN cluster, assuming one cluster to NAT444
> "network").  That means that each of the public pools will have to have
> buffer, vs. sharing the buffer over fewer CGN clusters.

I get that, but still, you are talking around 4.2 million addresses if
my math doesn't fail me. How many really do you plan on sitting on the
one CGN box/cluster?

It does sound to me a little like you are trying to minimise your own
costs & inconvenience by requesting an overly large range, which I'm
doubtful actually counts as justification.

> There is a bit of truth in what Randy says, although, not necessarily his
> intimation.
> 1) We want to use as small a block as reasonable without causing too many
> problems as identified above

Sounds more like you want to use as large a block as possible to
minimise the infrastructure duplication based on the above.

> 2) By asking for a smaller block, we hoped to remove some of the emotion and
> heat from the discussion.

Fly under the rader, so to speak? I dunno if that possibly looks
worse, being sneaky and all. If the idea is sound, then the
justification should follow for an appropriately sized allocation. /8
sounds "too big" to me, so does a /10.

Sam