RE: 240/4
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time, maybe even years. If this block was to be released to an RIR, who could possibly have a use for it? You can control your own variables, but if I'm an ISP/customer, I'm going to find an address allocation that leaves 99% of the Internet as a whole unreachable as pretty useless. I might was well just use RFC1918 space. Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to pay huge amounts of money to support a peer crazy enough to try this. And until tested, there is no guarantee that hardware based routing platforms (your PFCs, etc) can route Class E addresses as if they're unicast. Just my .02 though Chuck
RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
It's seems we're always confusing NAT with PAT (or NAT overload, or whatever else you want to call it). One to one NAT rarely breaks stuff. NAT-PT would need to follow that model, otherwise, yes, things will break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT boxes, and dedicate a block of v4 addresses the size of the expected concurrent online users to the NAT-PT box. Keep in mind that a v6 ISP with 1 million customers won't need a million v4 addresses, for obvious reasons. It's going to be considerably less than if each customer got a v4 address. NAT-PT does seem like a viable short term solution. I'm not sure though how to get current v4-only content providers to dual-stack their stuff. Increased domain fees maybe for v4-only domains... Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP sessions, etc fail.
RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
-Original Message- From: JAKO Andras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:59 PM To: Church, Charles Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) An IPv6-only ISP with enough IPv4 addresses for its concurrent online users seems strange. Why wouldn't that ISP give those v4 addresses to the online users instead of the NAT-PT box? And why do you call it IPv6-only? Andras Because not all users are online at the same time. Think back to the days where you had x number of dialup lines for y number of subscribers. It might be a 2:1 ratio. Maybe more, depending on how many time zones an ISP serves. It's not a huge plus, but once IPv4 content providers can see where x% of their web hits are coming from these NAT-PT blocks, they might be more motivated to go dual-stack. Chuck
