RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

["Robert D. Scott" <robert () ufl edu>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:28 AM
To: Chris Campbell
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?


On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Chris Campbell wrote:

> On 19 Apr 2010, at 03:52, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> > On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> > > Franck Martin wrote:
> > > > Sure the internet will not die...
> > > >
> > > > But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will
not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will
happen?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web browsers
> > > have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of IPv4 addresses
> > > required will drop.  Right now, you need 1 IP address for 1 SSL site;
> > > SNI spec of SSL gets rid of that.
> >
> > my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous 
> > connections, so does yours.
>
> I'm pretty sure that's not the case for inbound connections...
>
> http://vegan.net/pipermail/lb-l/2008-June/000871.html
Depends on which side of the loadbalancer you're talking about and how it is
configured.

Owen


Sounds like he is talking about a source NAT pool.  If the box will support
a million simultaneous PATS, it takes 16 addresses to make a PAT pool of
that size. But if you are routing in the data center they can be private, as
only the real servers will see them. If you had a need to do 1 arm across
the Internet a single NAT pool would provide service for a large number of
VIPS. These are featuress of an ACE.