From: Joel Jaeggli (no email)
Date: Sun May 04 2008 - 15:12:48 EDT
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> IPv4 has enough addresses for every computer on Earth, and then some.
There are approximately 3.4 billion or a little less usable ip
addresses. there are 3.3 billion mobile phone users buying approximately
400,000 ip capable devices a day. That's a single industy,
notwithstanding how the are presently employed what do you think those
deployments are going to look like in 5 years? in 10?
How many ip addresses do you need to nat 100 million customers? how much
state do you have to carry to do port demux for their traffic?
I guess making it all scale is someone else's problem...
> That having been said, I think going to IPv6 has a lot of other benefits
> that make it worthwhile.
>
> YMMV, IANAL, yadda yadda yadda
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:39 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [NANOG] fair warning: less than 1000 days left to IPv4
>>
>> (Nathan Ward) writes:
>>
>>>> That also doesn't take into account how many /8's are
>> being hoarded
>>>> by organizations that don't need even 25% of that space.
>>> Unless you're expecting those organisations to be really
>> nice and make
>>> that address space available to other organisations (ie. their RIR/
>>> LIR, or the highest bidder on ebay), ...
>> first, a parable:
>>
>> in datacenters, it used to be that the scarce resource was
>> rack space, but then it was connectivity, and now it's
>> power/heat/cooling. there are fallow fields of empty racks
>> too far from fiber routes or power grids to be filled, all
>> because the scarcity selector has moved over time. some
>> folks who were previously close to fiber routes and/or power
>> grids found that they could do greenfield construction and
>> that the customers would naturally move in, since too much
>> older datacenter capacity was unusable by modern standards.
>>
>> then, a recounting:
>>
>> michael dillon asked a while back what could happen if MIT
>> (holding 18/8) were to go into the ISP business, offering
>> dialup and/or tunnel/VPN access, and bundling a /24 with each
>> connection, and allowing each customer to multihome if they
>> so chose. nobody could think of an RIR rule, or an ISP rule,
>> or indeed anything else that could prevent this from
>> occurring. now, i don't think that MIT would do this, since
>> it would be a distraction for them, and they probably don't
>> need the money, and they're good guys, anyway.
>>
>> now, a prediction:
>>
>> but if the bottom feeding scumsuckers who saw the opportunity
>> now known as spam, or the ones who saw the opportunity now
>> known as NXDOMAIN remapping, or the ones who saw the
>> opportunity now known as DDoS for hire, realize that the next
>> great weakness in the internet's design and protocols is
>> explosive deaggregation by virtual shill networking, then we
>> can expect business plans whereby well suited shysters march
>> into MIT, and HP, and so on, offering to outsource this
>> monetization. "you get half the money but none of the
>> distraction, all you have to do is renumber or use NAT or
>> IPv6, we'll do the rest." nothing in recorded human history
>> argues against this occurring.
>> --
>> Paul Vixie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>>
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
|
|
|