nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: Phil Howard <phil () charon milepost com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 12:11:53 -0600 (CST)
Paul Ferguson writes...
[playing devil's advocate here] Of course, there is a rather large contingent of the Internet community that is of the opinion that IPv6 is a solution in search of a problem.
And we can most certainly go for a long time with IPv4. Just how long that will be depends on things like new technologies coming along that can impact how people use the Internet. IPv4 space is not enough for dedicating 1 IP address to every person. The question is when (or if) that will be needed. Under the current user paradigm of dialing up to a provider for a short while to surf, it may be indefinite. And that demand will be rolling off to level out at some point in the U.S. There are also increased costs involved in the processes being used to manage allocations of IPv4 space. Space is allocated in pieces as needed, which means either renumbering networks or introducing more routes into the BGP4 stream. One big /64 of IPv6 space will last virtually any ISP a century, unless they start trying to assign every grain of sand. And there would be just one route for all that. Administrative costs, once the software is in place that handles it, will be much less than with IPv4 space. With IPv4 space being managed better with CIDR, we do have more time to find the right way to deploy IPv6. I remember the panic of a few years ago. I was even called to ask if my then-employer would be able to return part of their class B assignment. The big problem I see today is not the amount of space, but the complexity of managing tight space, and things like the number of routes involved. Whether to IPv6 or not, maybe we should be looking at what next for BGP4. -- Phil Howard | stop2ads () spammer1 edu a9b1c1d6 () spam6mer net stop0029 () no7where com phil | eat68me5 () no3place net stop5565 () spammer7 net w4x2y5z9 () spammer5 com at | no22ads7 () no2where com stop7it1 () dumb8ads edu no2way80 () no9place net milepost | blow0me4 () lame2ads edu eat4this () dumb7ads org suck4it2 () no4where org dot | no1way72 () nowhere0 com ads0suck () lame5ads net stop9729 () no33ads6 org com | no2spam6 () anywhere edu end3it91 () no68ads8 edu end9ads2 () noplace3 com
Current thread:
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful NetSurfer (Oct 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Peter Evans (Nov 01)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Robert E. Seastrom (Nov 01)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful David R. Conrad (Nov 01)
- moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Peter Galbavy (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Scott W Brim (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vijay Gill (Nov 01)
- moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Nikos Mouat (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Joe Shaw (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Dorian R. Kim (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Brett Frankenberger (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jerry Scharf (Nov 01)