nanog mailing list archives
RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:42:53 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak () ai net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:19 PM To: james Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum james wrote:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4 -addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.htmlWell, on reading it, it's more an "IPv6: It's great -- ask for it by name!" piece.IPv6 gives me brain ache. I hear I'm not alone in that. I'd v6 tomorrow if I didn't have to think about it so hard.You just need 96 more bits in your head everywhere you store IPv4 techniques. Yes, lots of us have a brain ache with it, but I'm sure IPv4 gave us brain ache when it was new to us too.
A little software and/or memory upgrade to support dual-stack?
I'm sure there are already folks in environs that are mostly IPv6 that can spit off binary to hex to decimal IPv6 addresses. The US tends not to be
one
of those environs.
Indeed, we do exist! And it does become natural, given enough time & practice. (And yes, some of us are even in the US ... but not that many, yet (... which is good for business ...))
It'll come. operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if
its
a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just implementing it as IPv4 with a lot of bits (i.e. /126s for link interfaces, etc).
From what I have seen, no.
I have seen no interest what-so-ever in redesigning the networks; most see it as enough work to get IPv6 into their environment and don't want to complicate the project with any "above and beyond" work. Additionally, most are keeping IPv4 for just a bit longer so would be hampered in redoing their architecture by that little factor.
I know we aren't use auto-config on critical server architecture and
instead
nailing in addressing like we would in IPv4. (an address hopping firewall
is
not necessarily a good thing ;) ).
As a general rule, most clients are following the "If we gave them static IPv4 addresses we will give them static IPv6 addresses" (infrastructure, servers, etc). The whole SLAAC(autoconfig) vs DHCPv6 is a separate (albeit related) conversation ...
Deepak
/TJ
Current thread:
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)?, (continued)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Craig Pierantozzi (Aug 22)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Justin Shore (Aug 22)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Craig Pierantozzi (Aug 22)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Christopher Morrow (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? James Spenceley (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Jay Hennigan (Aug 25)
- Re: Native v6 with Level(3)? Christopher Morrow (Aug 26)
- RE: Native v6 with Level(3)? michael.dillon (Aug 26)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Deepak Jain (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum TJ (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 18)
- Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Justin M. Streiner (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum TJ (Aug 18)
- RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum Antonio Querubin (Aug 18)