IP4 Space - the lie

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 12:07:35 CST 2010


On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Dan White <dwhite at olp.net> wrote:
> On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/10 12:39 +0000, bmanning at 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.
>>
>> That's because you haven't done it yet.  When you start doing it,
>> you'll see that the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host will
>> bear almost no relationship whatsoever to any metrics you've previously
>> used to allocated IPv4 addresses.
>
> I have. Windows XP, for instance, will auto assign multiple addresses
> during auto configuration, including random identifiers.
>
> If you through in multiple routers for redundancy, then you start to have a
> multiplying effect, compared to your typical one v4 address per end user
> host.
>
> Also, the number of publicly routeable v6 addresses assigned to hosts is
> surely much higher, on average, than the public v4 addresses assigned
> to those hosts.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn "dynamic
>> IPv4 addresses" into "shared dynamic IPv4 addresses," we'll have enough
>> spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future.
>>
>> If I have half a million residential subscribers and I can get ten
>> subscribers onto each NATted IPv4 addresses, then I only need 50,000
>> addresses to service them.  Yet I have half a million addresses
>> *right now*, which I won't be giving back to my RIR.  So that turns
>> into 450,000 saleable addresses for premium customers after the
>> SP-NAT box is turned on, right?
>
> Possibly. I understand how to do HTTP proxies today, and understand its
> limitations. But it's a far more appealing technology than all these future
> technologies being proposed that fit in the 'once we all work out that we
> can use' category.
>

These IPv6-only systems are not far out, i am running a beta service
using NAT64/DNS64 today.  I believe a reasonable level off basic
service can be provided today using IPv6-only + NAT64/DNS64.  And, of
course, native IPv6 content is a better QoE than the common NAT44
folks have today.  I have demonstrations of windows 7 netbooks and
Symbian Nokia smartphones doing common function with only IPv6
addresses on the end systems, no IPv4 except for the translation pool
on the NAT64:  www.youtube.com/theipv6guy

Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only.  This
list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks
are ... and as others have pointed out, CGN will be an expensive and
poor QoE reality for those clinging to IPv4

> --
> Dan White
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list