Let's take a specific example. Comcast have 100 million customers on
their own, in their one single network. This is a single operator.
Lets assume that in 10 years time China has 1 billion set top box's.
RFC1918 is not big enough. IPv4 is barely big enough. It has to go to
IPv6.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 8:59 a.m.
To: Philip D'Ath
Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote:
From: Philip D'Ath
:
: 17 million addresses is simply not enough for a country the size of
the
: US (and many others). They already have 100 million set top box's
: deployed. :-)
RFC1918 space is used within a network only. Not across networks. So,
one network's IPTV customer can have the same STB IP address as
another's when the RCF1918 space is used. You stream from your head-end
to your customers only, so there's no need for public IP addressing.
The traffic stays within a particular network. That is, unless you're
talking about broadcasting on the internet to any STB in the world, or
something like that.
: Sorry, didn't realise you intended the email to be private. It seemed
: of a nature that would interest other people in this thread.
It's ok. I was unsure if everyone wanted to hear my non-beer-goggled
responses. Responses are so much more interesting when typed while
one's beer-goggled... ;-)
scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com]
: The release of IP based set top box's and
: the like is going to make the problem worse.
:: Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and
:: a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra
:: IPs for triple play stuff.
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote:
From: Philip D'Ath
:
: Think 20 years down the track.
:
: Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to
: EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space.
: There simply wont be enough of it.
Well, I guess I don't mind a private email going public...
There're about 17891328 RFC1918 IPs. Let's say you're going to use
7891328 IPs for internal addressing issues. That still leaves 10
million STB IP addresses for your network.
scott
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote:
From: Philip D'Ath
To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com
Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:47:59 +1300
Think 20 years down the track.
Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the
RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m.
To: Philip D'Ath
Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
Hello,
: The release of IP based set top box's and
: the like is going to make the problem worse.
Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the
DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff.
scott
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote:
From: Philip D'Ath
To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz
Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300
The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of
traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing.
Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6.
The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the
problem worse.
-----Original Message-----
One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used,
planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same
question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then
I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently
started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4
assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO.
Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider
offering
end to end IPv6 in or from NZ.
Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some
alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space
will
lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc.
It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but
a
question of when.
I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it
starts to look like an If :-)
To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be
leaders, or
are we content to be followers in the transition?
That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid
business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain
the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or
follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some*
operators.
Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self
contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different
matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly
excited about that.
jamie
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
