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

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

Brian Johnson wrote:

> > 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!

These days what we might at one point have refered to as a host or
server may actually be a hardware container with N > 1 or so virtual
systems...  which may variously be:

attached to the network via dedicated interface
individual vlans
a virtual bridge
a layer-3 topology

> > 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!

How many ips you can park on a particular hardware container is probably
bounded only by the over-subscription rate of what you intend to serve.
Most of the superficial limits (macs on a bridge table, ips on an
interface etc can be worked around in fairly simple fashion but the
number of connections per second or pps rate a given hardware container
 can pass though whatever abstraction is applied is less fungible.

> > 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