[125513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Apr 19 07:35:45 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE084997-4C24-4142-90C8-136AC5D67972@nebulassolutions.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:28:04 -0700
To: Chris Campbell <Chris.Campbell@nebulassolutions.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Chris Campbell wrote:
>=20
> On 19 Apr 2010, at 03:52, joel jaeggli wrote:
>=20
>> On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> Franck Martin wrote:
>>>> Sure the internet will not die...
>>>>=20
>>>> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network =
will not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what =
will happen?
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web =
browsers
>>> have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of IPv4 =
addresses
>>> required will drop. Right now, you need 1 IP address for 1 SSL =
site;
>>> SNI spec of SSL gets rid of that.
>>=20
>> my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous=20
>> connections, so does yours.
>>=20
>=20
> I'm pretty sure that's not the case for inbound connections...
>=20
> http://vegan.net/pipermail/lb-l/2008-June/000871.html
>=20
Depends on which side of the loadbalancer you're talking about and how =
it is configured.
Owen
