ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

2006-03-28 12:50:01
Scott Leibrand writes:

They could do so (when they implement IPv6) by running dual-stack routers.

Ah, so they aren't doing it _now_.  They'll probably be doing it Real
Soon Now.

My ISP doesn't yet provide IPv6 support.  But at some point they (or
another ISP) will.

I guess that's when you'll find out how much extra they'll charge.

I don't think you understand exponential math as it applies to IPv6.

Yes, I do, but most engineers don't, which is why they are repeating
the same mistakes they made with IPv4 in their implementations of
IPv6.

IPv6 was specifically designed to make this possible.  With /48
assignments and an HD ratio of .94, projections indicate a ~500 year
lifetime to exhaust the IPv6 address space.

Wait and see.

Yep.  And since there are about 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 /64's, such
wastage is not a problem.  IPv6 was *designed* to make sure that address
space conservation is *not* required.

There isn't any way to do that with any address space of any size as
long as people refuse to understand the difference between exponential
and linear changes.

If you consider hundreds of years "soon", then sure.

It's going to be far less than hundreds of years.

They don't need to be.  For the life of any existing applications, IPv4
connectivity will still be available in some fashion.

Things that have to be aware of the Internet can hardly ignore a
change in something as fundamental as the size of an IP address.

No, usually it's a lot less than 50%.  More typical is like $5/mo extra
for additional IP(s).

How much do the additional IPs cost the ISP?



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>