Scott Leibrand writes: > They could do so (when they implement IPv6) by running dual-stack routers. Ah, so they aren't doing it _now_. They'll probably be doing it Real Soon Now. > My ISP doesn't yet provide IPv6 support. But at some point they (or > another ISP) will. I guess that's when you'll find out how much extra they'll charge. > I don't think you understand exponential math as it applies to IPv6. Yes, I do, but most engineers don't, which is why they are repeating the same mistakes they made with IPv4 in their implementations of 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. Wait and see. > 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. There isn't any way to do that with any address space of any size as long as people refuse to understand the difference between exponential and linear changes. > If you consider hundreds of years "soon", then sure. It's going to be far less than hundreds of years. > They don't need to be. For the life of any existing applications, IPv4 > connectivity will still be available in some fashion. Things that have to be aware of the Internet can hardly ignore a change in something as fundamental as the size of an IP address. > No, usually it's a lot less than 50%. More typical is like $5/mo extra > for additional IP(s). How much do the additional IPs cost the ISP? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf