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.
But things have to get to that point first. I for one am not especially
sanguine about IPv4 address scarcity forcing sensible behavior soon enough.
Especially given the major holes in IPv6 device support we've been discussing.
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.
First of all, I disagree with this assessment, and cite as evidence the
widespread availability of support for mutiple addresses in SOHO-class
firewalls and related equipment. Again, why is this feature present in so many
SOHO-class router/firewalls and has been present for the past 10 years at least
if nobody out there uses it?
Additional IPv4 global addresses for an access point will
likely involve recurring costs due to complexity and dependence upon
this scarce resource.
True. But the current recurring costs are far less than the effective costs of
all the gyrations you have to go through with proxies and whatnot when you try
and make it all work with NATPT.
I note in passing that this might have played out differently had we gotten SRV
record support in place for all protocols a lot sooner. But without it for HTTP
in particular you're faced with the need for multiple port 80s in a lot of
cases.
The inflection point for when multiple IPv4
addresses at an access point become anachronistic occurs with an IPv6
connectivity imperative.
Yes, but the trick is getting things to that point.
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. :^)
That may indeed be the case, but I must say Hardly a fair comparison for a lot
of venues. It's always easier to deploy new infrastructure when there's
relatively little old infrastructure that has to coexist or be replaced.
> 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.
Of couse it can. But that's precisely the point - neither the skill nor the
non-commodity equipment are available in most cases. And even when they are, a
lot of people, like myself, run the costs versus benefits and IPv6 ends up
losing.
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?
More strawmen. We're not talking about increased IPv4 use, but rather decent
support for existing, long-deployed IPv4 use. If you seriously think you can
get people to dump their existing setups in favor of somethign that is a major
PITA to deal with and offers no immediate benefit, well, I have a couple of
bridges available at fire sale prices.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf