Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Robert D. Scott
robert at ufl.edu
Mon Apr 19 06:44:22 CDT 2010
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:28 AM
To: Chris Campbell
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Chris Campbell wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2010, at 03:52, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> Franck Martin wrote:
>>>> Sure the internet will not die...
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>> my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous
>> connections, so does yours.
> I'm pretty sure that's not the case for inbound connections...
Depends on which side of the loadbalancer you're talking about and how it is
Sounds like he is talking about a source NAT pool. If the box will support
a million simultaneous PATS, it takes 16 addresses to make a PAT pool of
that size. But if you are routing in the data center they can be private, as
only the real servers will see them. If you had a need to do 1 arm across
the Internet a single NAT pool would provide service for a large number of
VIPS. These are featuress of an ACE.
More information about the NANOG