Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

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

 



On 6/9/10 1:19 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
When IPv6 is available, each device becomes
accessible with unique IP addresses.  A conservative approach for scarce
IPv4 addresses is to associate dedicated servers/services with specific
ports of a single global address, a feature supported by nearly all
commodity routers.  Whenever accessing IPv6 networks over the Internet
becomes imperative, ISPs will suggest boilerplate solutions.  However,
it seems unlikely these will include anachronistic use of IPv4 addresses.
And so, having no other argument to make, we resort to pejoratives?
Sorry, this was in reference to an approach based on passed assumptions. The inflection point for when multiple IPv4 addresses at an access point becomes anachronistic will occur with an IPv6 connectivity imperative driven by the lack of IPv4 addresses.

In most small office/home office (SOHO) cases, a single IPv4 address is both sufficient and well supported for use with IPv4 and IPv6 remote networks. Additional IPv4 global addresses for an access point will likely involve recurring costs due to complexity and dependence upon this scarce resource. The inflection point for when multiple IPv4 addresses at an access point become anachronistic occurs with an IPv6 connectivity imperative. Perhaps the US will delay acceptance of this imperative, long after the rest of the world has embraced IPv6. After all, US, Liberia, and Burma have yet to adopt metric measures. :^)
Calling small business use of a small number of IPv4 addresses "anachronistic" doesn't change the fact that this is a widespread practice fully supported by an ample number of reasonable quality router products. And you're not going to get IPv6 deployed in such cases without a drop-in replacement that adds IPv6 support to what's already there.
Clearly, with skill and non-commodity equipment, a configuration supporting multiple IPv4 addresses at an access point can be implemented in conjunction with IPv6. This could be practical when many within an organization are affected, but would not involve commodity low-end routers. Such configurations will remain rare due to IPv4 resource consumption, and greater support complexity. Fortunately, it remains easy to adopt the resource conservative IPv4 configurations supported by commodity routers when obtaining IPv6 connectivity. Why should the IETF advocate an increased IPv4 use that lacks benefit once a network has been configured?

-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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