On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:42:50AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:20 PM, George Bonser <gbon...@seven.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Christopher Morrow > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:49 PM >> >> To: bmanning >> >> Cc: NANOG >> >> Subject: Re: IPv4 sunset date revised : 2009-02-05 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> (now I'm teasing.. .Bill where's your docs on this fantastic new >> >> teknowlogie?) >> >> >> > >> > I found it here: >> > >> > http://www.ivi2.org/ >> > >> > But the readme is a bit confusing: >> > >> > http://www.ivi2.org/code/00-ivi0.5-README >> > >> > Trying to figure out how they map a /70 v6 prefix to a /30 v4 prefix >> > assuming the mapping is to be 1-1 >> > >> >> Right, 1 to 1 does not solve any IPv4 exhaustion problems. > > > ah... but the trick is to only need enough IPv4 in the pool > to dynamically talk to the Internet. Native v6 to Native v6 > never has to drop back to the Internet, It uses native v6 > paths. So the larger the v6 uptake, the fewer Internet addreses > you'll need to keep around in your pool. > > >> Going back to the title of the thread, IVI does not help you sunset >> IPv4 since the same amount of IPv4 is required. > > See above. >
So works, just not at a large scale. For larger scale, you need address sharing like NAT64.