Re: IP4 Space - the lie

[Dan White <dwhite () olp net>]

On 05/03/10 12:39 +0000, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
> > 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.

I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a
multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host.

>         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.

Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end
users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or
charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat.

--
Dan White