- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP addresses
by Ewen McNeill 28 May '03

28 May '03

In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0305291823140.17378-100000(a)boggle.ihug.co.nz>, Simon L yall writes: >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Joe Abley wrote: >> So, only 14% of the available IPv4 address space had been assigned to >> RIRs at the time of that presentation. > >Which is fairly meaningless since half those 202 are instead delegated >to Large Organisations, Various Registries etc. For sure. But if push comes to shove IANA can talk quietly (perhaps in the "talk quietly and carry a big stick" sense) to some of those Large Organisations and see if they couldn't perhaps manage with somewhat less than 2**24 addresses. >As the cost of putting a full IP stack and connection drops to only a >couple of dollars or less all sorts of random things will start having >them. And before you say NAT remember that the power company will want to >directly access your meter and hotwater cylinder, your car company the >car, your whiteware company the fridge etc. Did I mention the games >console? For many of those it could easily enough be done with NAT. It seems to me that "phoning home" isn't, inheriently, any more problematic than being able to interogate the devices remotely for the vendor. And it's probably somewhat preferable for the customer too. (Even if everything was globally routable, would you want Joe Random Company connecting in to arbitrary devices your network? This isn't your grandmother's Internet any longer. Sure you can use a firewall. You've just moved the problem to being one of ensuring a million or so firewalls are properly maintained. If I were a vendor, I'd take "phoning home".) >When stuff like that comes along we really want them to be deployed on a >nice ipv6 internet rather than have to suddenly switch cause demand >increases by a factor of 10 overnight. It would be nice to have $1,000,000 tomorrow too. I don't think either of them will happen.[0] Even at the current ease of use the cost/benefit ratio for converting to IPv6 is too low for (m)any(one) to put effort into doing so. It'll only be when there's a whole lot more benefit (eg, lots of IPv6-only services, or stuff which cannot be done with IPv4+NAT) or a lot less effort (works out of the box without even thinking about it, and has for years) that'll actually happen. Especially since we've had the better part of 10 years for everyone to get pretty good at designing IPv4+NAT compatible protocols and networks, thus greatly mitigating the perceived benefit of switching. Ewen [0] Although should someone wish to give me $1,000,000 tomorrow, I'd be willing to look suitably surprised on camera.

1 0

WTS Tracking controler and beacon receiver!
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

WTS SSE Satellite SM3000modem in perfect condition
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

WTS SSE Satellite SM3000modem in perfect condition
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

WTS PM4 with 27E1 ports full loaded
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

WTS CISCO AS5200-60DM-CH
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

WTS 3COM Total Control 4E1 ports!
by Latchezar Dinev 28 May '03

28 May '03

1 0

IPv6 at APE
by Joe Abley 27 May '03

27 May '03

is anybody at the APE equipped to do IPv6 peering? Private replies are fine, I'll summarise if there's interest (and if there are replies).

11 18

Netforum Call for Papers
by Donald Neal 27 May '03

27 May '03

Roger De Salis sent this to the list: - - - - - The Netforum conference for 2003 is scheduled for July 10,11,12. The Theme of the conference is Next Generation Internet: Advanced Network Operations and Computer Networking in Aviation The conference will be extremely technical with >2/3 content devoted to advanced networking and related topics. Speakers are invited to submit proposals for papers to the conference committee by sending a synopsis and Title to "netforum(a)fx.net.nz". We look forward to an expanded conference in 2003, and the conference committee will be working very hard to meet or exceed the standard set by the 2002 conference, which I hope many of you enjoyed. The committee looks forward to receiving proposals. ==================================================================== In a similar manner, attendees are welcome to suggest topics or papers they are interested in seeing, and the conference organisers will then be able to help persuade likely speakersto stump up a talk. Send to "suggestions(a)fx.net.nz" Rgds Roger De Salis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: [nznog] IPv6 at APE
by Ewen McNeill 25 May '03

25 May '03

In message <5.2.0.9.1.20030526172452.055d4380(a)mail.igrin.co.nz>, Simon Byrnand writes: >The problem I can see with the introduction of ipv6 is that its such a >fundamental change, a bit like converting an entire country from imperial >to metric, except that you're trying to convert the WHOLE world :) Which sounds bad, except when you realise that the process doesn't require a "flag day", and has been very carefully designed so that it can happen over the course of several years (dual stacks, tunnels, etc). The major thing which is leading to slow progress, IMHO, is the lack of a really compelling need for it. IPv4 + NAT is a 90% solution. (OTOH there's something approaching a compelling need ofr multicasting, and that hasn't exactly happened much since last year either.) I think you're probably right that it'll take a very long time before IPv4 will be completely gone. But there've been plenty of other network protocols and many of them are nearly extinct. ("Native" windows networking is nearly gone -- haven't seen it in ages -- and even IPX is looking endangered (Novell went IP a couple of versions back), without even looking at protocols which were much less widely deployed.) FWIW, I do still keep meaning to experiment some more with IPv6 given some spare time, especially as most (all?) of the operating systems I'm using support IPv6 out of the box (OpenBSD, Linux, Solaris, etc, all support it out of the box these days). Ewen

1 0