IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks

Wed Oct 28 05:23:29 UTC 2009

Brian Johnson wrote:

>> Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was
>> around 4096.
> 
> So in this circumstance you could route a /116 to the server. COOL!

These days what we might at one point have refered to as a host or
server may actually be a hardware container with N > 1 or so virtual
systems...  which may variously be:

attached to the network via dedicated interface
individual vlans
a virtual bridge
a layer-3 topology

>> In practice though, you also have to consider the physical limitations
>> of the server itself.  The biggest bang for the buck in dense hosting
>> environments seems to be running about 1000 sites per box, with a few
>> boxes dedicated to your heavy hitters with 100 or less ea.
> 
> So in this circumstance you could route a /118 to the server serving
> 1000 sites and a /125 to the server serving 100 sites. Also COOL!

How many ips you can park on a particular hardware container is probably
bounded only by the over-subscription rate of what you intend to serve.
Most of the superficial limits (macs on a bridge table, ips on an
interface etc can be worked around in fairly simple fashion but the
number of connections per second or pps rate a given hardware container
 can pass though whatever abstraction is applied is less fungible.

>> Until we start seeing IPv6-only hosting though, I suspect that we will
>> see IPv6 address mirror the configuration of the IP assignments.
>> Sites with dedicated IPs will have dedicated IPv6, sites with shared
>> IP will have shared IPv6, if only to maintain sanity.
> 
> This passes my smell and duh tests. :)
> 
>> If you're trying to make the case for IPv6 to hosting companies,
>> you're barking up the wrong tree.  IP address just became a scarce
>> commodity, instead of providing you with a free IP address, the can
>> now charge $100 a mo for one.  They know darn well that it will take a
>> while for every user to have IPv6 from their SP and that if you want
>> to run a site you'll need access to the "legacy" IP Internet to reach
>> your customers.  On the bright side, this will encourage the market to
>> adopt IPv6 because they can't afford IP.  Hopefully ARIN adopts a
>> policy of decommissioning IP space as they reclaim it to prevent
>> people from receiving new allocations as people begin to go IPv6-only,
>> otherwise we'll be stuck with two Internets for a very long time.
> 
> Agreed, except for one thing. ARIN shouldn't "decommission" IP space.
> The Internet will dictate that IPv4 will go away all on its own once
> IPv6 becomes the protocol of choice for enough of the net. At some
> point, the people who depend on IPv4 will not be able to pay for their
> providers supporting the IPv4 infrastructure as new devices become
> available that either only support IPv6, or don't implement a full suite
> of IPv4 to keep costs down.
> 
> Also remember that at some point, there will be no IPv4 left. When this
> happens new entrants will suffer greatly at the hands of this
> circumstance. But we will get through it and there will be new sites
> that will be IPv6 only, then there will be demand for these sites, then
> there will be people who vote with their wallets for the new sites...
> 
> Was I rambling there? :) In the end it will be economics that dictate a
> single protocol Internet. I am one who wishes we put a date in stone now
> to establish the "cut date" of IPv4 to IPv6, but that is unreasonable.
> This will take care of itself.
> 
> _____________________________________
> Brian Johnson
> Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA)
> Dickey Rural Networks
> 
> 