On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +0000, bmanning@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.
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? Problem solved :-) - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223