[69670] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why use IPv6, was: Lazy network operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sun Apr 18 13:07:53 2004
In-Reply-To: <86681FBC-9121-11D8-8AF5-000A9578BB58@ianai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:06:30 +0200
To: "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
[...]
> Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to
> migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we
wouldn't have this problem" more and more.
>> Because of the large address space, scanning address blocks is no
>> longer an option.
> You have a /64, scanning that would be an issue. Is scanning a /96
> really "no longer an option"? How about in a year? Two years?
People usually get /48s in IPv6, and you're not really supposed to use
anything smaller than a /64 for most of the IPv6 address space. Let's
assume a scan rate of 10 Gbps @ 64 bytes/packet. This makes it possible
to probe in the order of 2^40 addresses per day, so it should take 2^24
days to scan a /64 ~= 46000 years.
>> I think "no customers" is rounding it down slightly. Yes, demand is
>> low, but so is supply, hard to tell which causes which. And customers
>> who do ask, are routinely turned down.
> Certainly no customers on "The Web". Maybe some niche applications.
See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under "site"
represent different web pages. 8 is a fairly standard one, and it gets
around 0.15% visits from people who are v6-capable. (It's a page in
Dutch, though, so the results are not representative of the situation
in the US.)
>> Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take
>> addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48
>> will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered
>> between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either
>> fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another
>> primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much
>> easier in IPv6.
> This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still at
> the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is
> down, so am I.
True. However, many people don't get to do better than this in v4
either.
> (And don't even think about saying backbones never go down.)
Wouldn't dream of it. :-)
