Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:

> That is not a real problem.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard _that_.  Eight bits,
sixteen bits, thirty-two bits, sixty-four bits, and now 128 bits ...
they are all "good for eternity" for at least a few years, and then
suddenly they are out of space.

> It is not practical to manage router tables with greater than 2^64
> entries. In fact it is impractical to manage router tables with more
> than 2^48 entries using technology forseable in the next ten or so
> years.

It will never be possible to put an entire gigabyte of memory into a
computer.  Processor speeds cannot exceed around 10 MIPS without
running into fundamental physical barriers.  The maximum transmission
speed of a modem can never exceed 2400 bps.

> The other side of the coin is the fact that many devices will effectively
> require no more than a /128 because of the way they connect up to the
> network. For example cell phones will be serviced on plans where the
> subscription fee is per device. Verizon, T-mobile, cingular need no more
> than one /64 each to service those networks.

No more than 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses each?  Well, that's
comforting.  But I suspect they will run out, anyway, for the same
reason that all address spaces run out.

Throwing away essentially the entire address space (/64) from the
beginning is not a good sign.  It just demonstrates that the address
space will be exhausted in linear time, not exponential time.




_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]