[123354] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 5 13:16:15 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100305144019.GA4695@dan.olp.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 02:11:49 +0800
To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
If I can try to re-rail the train of this discussion a bit...
1. Yes, dual-stacking may require as many IPv4 addresses as IPv6
addresses. However, in this case, I was referring to =
dual-stacking
as meaning adding IPv6 capabilities to your existing IPv4 hosts =
and
infrastructure, thus, implying that the IPv4 addresses were =
already
present on said hosts.
2. If we dual-stack enough of the IPv4 network quickly (and it =
really
isn't that hard, folks), then, adding IPv6-only hosts later =
really
isn't nearly as bad as it is perceived today. After all, the =
major
drawback to adding an IPv6-only host today is that it can't
reach all the IPv4-only servers it may want to get stuff from.
If we dual-stack most or all of those servers (which already
have IPv4 addresses on them now, so, no additional
IPv4 depletion is required on that part), then, when we're
out of IPv4 for new hosts, an IPv6-only host is not a
uselessly crippled host.
Owen
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:40 PM, Dan White wrote:
> 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
>>=20
>>=20
>> er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
>> dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 =
addresses.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>> if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
>> either you are going to need:
>>=20
>> lots more IPv4 space
>>=20
>> stealing ports to mux addresses
>>=20
>> run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk =
to a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..)
>>=20
>> imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> --=20
> Dan White
