[123321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Mar 5 07:43:02 2010
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:39:19 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4B907507.800@ibctech.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > I proffer that
> > such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
> > networks.
>
> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
> trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
> toward dual-stack ;)
>
> Nice.
>
> Steve
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
either you are going to need:
lots more IPv4 space
stealing ports to mux addresses
run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk to
a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..)
imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution.
--bill
