RE: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks

From: Brian Johnson (no email)
Date: Tue Oct 27 2009 - 11:53:36 EDT

  • Next message: Brian R. Watters: "Level 3 dup packets"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ray Soucy [mailto:]
    > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:45 AM
    > To: Jeffrey Ollie
    > Cc: North American Network Operators Group
    > Subject: Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of
    > > But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds
    > > thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the
    > performance
    > > implications be?
    > >
    > > Jeff Ollie
    > Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was
    > around 4096.

    So in this circumstance you could route a /116 to the server. COOL!

    > In practice though, you also have to consider the physical limitations
    > of the server itself. The biggest bang for the buck in dense hosting
    > environments seems to be running about 1000 sites per box, with a few
    > boxes dedicated to your heavy hitters with 100 or less ea.

    So in this circumstance you could route a /118 to the server serving
    1000 sites and a /125 to the server serving 100 sites. Also COOL!

    > Until we start seeing IPv6-only hosting though, I suspect that we will
    > see IPv6 address mirror the configuration of the IP assignments.
    > Sites with dedicated IPs will have dedicated IPv6, sites with shared
    > IP will have shared IPv6, if only to maintain sanity.

    This passes my smell and duh tests. :)

    > If you're trying to make the case for IPv6 to hosting companies,
    > you're barking up the wrong tree. IP address just became a scarce
    > commodity, instead of providing you with a free IP address, the can
    > now charge $100 a mo for one. They know darn well that it will take a
    > while for every user to have IPv6 from their SP and that if you want
    > to run a site you'll need access to the "legacy" IP Internet to reach
    > your customers. On the bright side, this will encourage the market to
    > adopt IPv6 because they can't afford IP. Hopefully ARIN adopts a
    > policy of decommissioning IP space as they reclaim it to prevent
    > people from receiving new allocations as people begin to go IPv6-only,
    > otherwise we'll be stuck with two Internets for a very long time.

    Agreed, except for one thing. ARIN shouldn't "decommission" IP space.
    The Internet will dictate that IPv4 will go away all on its own once
    IPv6 becomes the protocol of choice for enough of the net. At some
    point, the people who depend on IPv4 will not be able to pay for their
    providers supporting the IPv4 infrastructure as new devices become
    available that either only support IPv6, or don't implement a full suite
    of IPv4 to keep costs down.

    Also remember that at some point, there will be no IPv4 left. When this
    happens new entrants will suffer greatly at the hands of this
    circumstance. But we will get through it and there will be new sites
    that will be IPv6 only, then there will be demand for these sites, then
    there will be people who vote with their wallets for the new sites...

    Was I rambling there? :) In the end it will be economics that dictate a
    single protocol Internet. I am one who wishes we put a date in stone now
    to establish the "cut date" of IPv4 to IPv6, but that is unreasonable.
    This will take care of itself.

    Brian Johnson
    Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA)
    Dickey Rural Networks

  • Next message: Brian R. Watters: "Level 3 dup packets"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD