IP4 Space - the lie

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Mar 5 09:37:49 CST 2010

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:21:53PM +0000, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > 	er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
> > 	dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
> > 	
> > 	if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
> > 	either you are going to need:
> > 
> > 	lots more IPv4 space
> > 
> > 	stealing ports to mux addresses
> > 
> > 	run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk to 
> > 	a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..)
> > 
> > 	imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution.
> There are several IPv4/IPv6 co-existence technologies under
> development that attempt to resolve the asymmetry Bill notes here,
> where IPv4 addresses are already scarce and IPv6 addresses may
> reasonably be treated as less so. They include IVI, NAT64/DNS64, and
> dual-stack lite.
> See for example the lightning talk last Wednesday in Austin on AFTR,
> ISC's free, open source implementation of dual-stack lite, or the
> panel discussion at APRICOT earlier this week.
> It's only been in the last couple of years that the IETF and the
> vendors have been taking seriously the problem of moving IPv4-IPv6
> co-existence mechanisms into the network, away from host-based
> dual-stack and into use cases where legacy infrastructure has to
> co-exist with the need for growth. But now that they have, there's an
> embarrassment of what we can hope turn out to be riches in this
> area....or at least a pony amongst the, err, bulk of material.

	there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
	translation technology, esp one that is integrated into 
	the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
	or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
	it when it no longer works for her - but the ISP sees her as a 
	statistically anomaly.

	I would argue that the right/correct place for such translation 
	technology is very close to the edge - in much the same way as
	NAT technology is roughl an "edge" technology.  (ok - it used to be but w/ 
	CGN .. its clearly moved.

	we -need- the technologies - but only for a while.  otherwise they 
	become a drug that we are dependent on. and we will be stuck on the
	dual-stack plateau for a much longer time that we should.

	imho of coure ... YM (and business models) MV

> Suzanne

More information about the NANOG mailing list