nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space - the lie
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:39:19 +0000
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:I proffer that such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your networks.I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving toward dual-stack ;) Nice. Steve
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand? dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses. if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again. either you are going to need: lots more IPv4 space stealing ports to mux addresses run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk to a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..) imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution. --bill
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 11)
- Re: IP4 Space Mark Andrews (Mar 11)
- OT: Anyone seeing these sorts of probes? Port 46993 udp? Joe (Mar 11)
- Re: OT: Anyone seeing these sorts of probes? Port 46993 udp? James Hess (Mar 11)
- Re: OT: Anyone seeing these sorts of probes? Port 46993 udp? Clinton Popovich (Mar 12)
- Message not available
- Re: IP4 Space Tim Chown (Mar 12)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Jens Link (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 10)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie bmanning (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Cameron Byrne (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Suzanne Woolf (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie bmanning (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Jim Burwell (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Dan White (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie bmanning (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Mark Newton (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Dan White (Mar 06)