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 > >