: The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught : many lessons about what will and will not work (and more : importantly what will be accepted or not). Exactly. I NEED to multihome. I won't accept not being able to do that. No provider is going to be good enough that I trust ALL of my connectivity with them and no one else. That settles it right there. A protocol should not dictate my business practice. : ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's : presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" WRT "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses", I see the following chart. (apologies for the formatting. It's on page 6 at www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/alain-durand.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Triple Play Effect on the Use of IP Addresses 2005 2006+ HSD only Triple Play
Cable Modem 1(private only) 1 Home Computer/Router 1 1 eMTA (Voice adaptor) 0 1 – 2 Set Top Box (STB) 0 2 Total number of IP addresses(assume 2.5 1 – 2 8 – 9 STB per household)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What STB needs 2 IPs per box? The way we're doing it is one private IP per STB and one STB per television set, so that's 2-3 private IPs per household. One public IP per customer for Internet and we're not going for VoIP until later. Perhaps they have one STB per household no matter the number of television sets? Also, I see they have 20-30 ASNs. Are all 20M customers going to be in one AS? I wouldn't expect that. Finally, with VPRNs addresses could be reused. Just put the customers in different VPRNs and duplicate the address scheme. It's 'divide and conquer' methodology. I'm a noobie to VPRNs, so flame me if this isn't feasible. I have doused my flameproof underpants with beer, so I'm protected... :-) scott --- jejs+lists(a)sahala.org wrote: From: "joshua sahala" <jejs+lists(a)sahala.org> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:42:35 +1300 (NZDT) I find it slightly ironic that those screaming the loudest for IPv6 seem to have the most poorly researched assertions regarding the death of IPv4. (I am of course ignoring the obvious stupidity of things like IPv8/9/16) Who are the loudest proponents of IPv6? I tend to agree with the evaluation presented in Todd Underwood's blog: vendors, consultants, and the protocol designers themselves... (http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/bashing_ipv6_at_telecomnext.shtml) If IPv6 is the answer, what was the question again? Perhaps it is time to accept that IPv6 is the wrong answer (or we need to start asking better questions), take the lessons learned from its failure, and start again. The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught many lessons about what will and will not work (and more importantly what will be accepted or not). There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack. These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :) </soapbox> /joshua ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" (it says ~20-million customers + kit == 100-million) -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams - _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog