On 03/28/06 at 9:00pm +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Leibrand writes: > > > Um, have you heard of dual stack? My Windows XP does it quite > > transparently (after I enable IPv6 at the command line), and presumably > > Vista will do IPv4/IPv6 dual stack transparently without any command-line > > enabling. > > How does your ISP handle this? They could do so (when they implement IPv6) by running dual-stack routers. > How much extra does your ISP charge you for IPv6 support? My ISP doesn't yet provide IPv6 support. But at some point they (or another ISP) will. > > As I argued in another message, IMO ISPs will not be able to charge extra > > for an IPv6 /64. > > A /64 is a criminal waste of address space; they _should_ charge extra > for that. I don't think you understand exponential math as it applies to IPv6. IPv6 was specifically designed to make this possible. With /48 assignments and an HD ratio of .94, projections indicate a ~500 year lifetime to exhaust the IPv6 address space. > > That gives you basically as many hosts as your > > routing/switching gear can handle on a single subnet (as you won't be able > > to put 2^64 hosts on a single broadcast domain). > > And even with a million hosts, you'll be wasting fully > 99.9999999999945% of the /64. Yep. And since there are about 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 /64's, such wastage is not a problem. IPv6 was *designed* to make sure that address space conservation is *not* required. > Do you see why IPv6 address space will soon be exhausted? If you consider hundreds of years "soon", then sure. > > As long as you already have v6-capable gear, enabling IPv6 shouldn't be > > significantly more expensive than running v4. IMO it doesn't make sense > > to try to run v6 on gear that only supports v4, but since pretty much all > > new gear supports v6 now, folks should be able to gradually turn on v6 as > > appropriate in their networks. > > When did all applications become capable of handling IPv6? They don't need to be. For the life of any existing applications, IPv4 connectivity will still be available in some fashion. > > All the ones I've seen charge a small premium for additional IP space, > > but it's never more than about a 50% premium. > > Fifty percent is a small premium? No, usually it's a lot less than 50%. More typical is like $5/mo extra for additional IP(s). -Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf