Re: IP4 Space - the lie

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:21:53PM +0000, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +0000, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
> >     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.
>
> There are several IPv4/IPv6 co-existence technologies under
> development that attempt to resolve the asymmetry Bill notes here,
> where IPv4 addresses are already scarce and IPv6 addresses may
> reasonably be treated as less so. They include IVI, NAT64/DNS64, and
> dual-stack lite.
>
> See for example the lightning talk last Wednesday in Austin on AFTR,
> ISC's free, open source implementation of dual-stack lite, or the
> panel discussion at APRICOT earlier this week.
>
> It's only been in the last couple of years that the IETF and the
> vendors have been taking seriously the problem of moving IPv4-IPv6
> co-existence mechanisms into the network, away from host-based
> dual-stack and into use cases where legacy infrastructure has to
> co-exist with the need for growth. But now that they have, there's an
> embarrassment of what we can hope turn out to be riches in this
> area....or at least a pony amongst the, err, bulk of material.

        there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
        translation technology, esp one that is integrated into 
        the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
        or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
        it when it no longer works for her - but the ISP sees her as a 
        statistically anomaly.

        I would argue that the right/correct place for such translation 
        technology is very close to the edge - in much the same way as
        NAT technology is roughl an "edge" technology.  (ok - it used to be but w/ 
        CGN .. its clearly moved.

        we -need- the technologies - but only for a while.  otherwise they 
        become a drug that we are dependent on. and we will be stuck on the
        dual-stack plateau for a much longer time that we should.

        imho of coure ... YM (and business models) MV

--bill
> Suzanne