[123328] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan White)
Fri Mar 5 09:43:43 2010
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:40:19 -0600
From: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
In-Reply-To: <20100305123919.GA20227@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 05/03/10 12:39 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> 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.
I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a
multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host.
> 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.
Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end
users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or
charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat.
--
Dan White
