On 6/9/10 1:19 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
When IPv6 is available, each device becomes
accessible with unique IP addresses. A conservative approach for scarce
IPv4 addresses is to associate dedicated servers/services with specific
ports of a single global address, a feature supported by nearly all
commodity routers. Whenever accessing IPv6 networks over the Internet
becomes imperative, ISPs will suggest boilerplate solutions. However,
it seems unlikely these will include anachronistic use of IPv4
addresses.
And so, having no other argument to make, we resort to pejoratives?
Sorry, this was in reference to an approach based on passed
assumptions. The inflection point for when multiple IPv4 addresses at
an access point becomes anachronistic will occur with an IPv6
connectivity imperative driven by the lack of IPv4 addresses.
In most small office/home office (SOHO) cases, a single IPv4 address is
both sufficient and well supported for use with IPv4 and IPv6 remote
networks. Additional IPv4 global addresses for an access point will
likely involve recurring costs due to complexity and dependence upon
this scarce resource. The inflection point for when multiple IPv4
addresses at an access point become anachronistic occurs with an IPv6
connectivity imperative. Perhaps the US will delay acceptance of this
imperative, long after the rest of the world has embraced IPv6. After
all, US, Liberia, and Burma have yet to adopt metric measures. :^)
Calling small business use of a small number of IPv4 addresses
"anachronistic"
doesn't change the fact that this is a widespread practice fully
supported by
an ample number of reasonable quality router products. And you're not
going to
get IPv6 deployed in such cases without a drop-in replacement that
adds IPv6
support to what's already there.
Clearly, with skill and non-commodity equipment, a configuration
supporting multiple IPv4 addresses at an access point can be implemented
in conjunction with IPv6. This could be practical when many within an
organization are affected, but would not involve commodity low-end
routers. Such configurations will remain rare due to IPv4 resource
consumption, and greater support complexity. Fortunately, it remains
easy to adopt the resource conservative IPv4 configurations supported by
commodity routers when obtaining IPv6 connectivity. Why should the IETF
advocate an increased IPv4 use that lacks benefit once a network has
been configured?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf