Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/685e8bd02518b104a615bfd6c7e80cfc.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote:
From: Philip D'Ath
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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b0b88c827aa8d6638c4f07c22ccd5137.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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
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
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/7ccfdcb435d44485cc915360082f6400.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 29/11/2006, at 9:01 AM, Philip D'Ath wrote:
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.
Given current policies, and multi-homing 'support', one could also argue that IPv6 isn't big enough either... IPv6 will be (and is) deployed when it is useful. (that is not a troll) Jonny.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4a4f224666a35460433d7ae1aa3143e8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 29/11/06, Philip D'Ath
Let's take a specific example. Comcast have 100 million customers on their own, in their one single network. This is a single operator.
This struck me as 'yeah right'.
From comcast website: (http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/About/CorporateInfo/CorporateInfo.html)
Overview: Comcast Corporation is the nation's leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services, with 24.1 million cable customers, 11 million high-speed Internet customers and 2.1 million voice customers. Comcast is principally involved in the development, management and operation of broadband cable networks and in the delivery of programming content.* If you are going to use number at least spend the 10 seconds backing up the figures to refute others. Also these 24 million cable customers are likely on many different networks as Comcast has purchased other smaller operators. So while they may have 24 million cable clients I would think it is more like they have 20-30 cable networks they are trying to managed.
Lets assume that in 10 years time China has 1 billion set top box's.
We can assume anything we want, however that would mean that every 'home' in China would have 2.5 set top boxes. (I have assumed avg home being 3 people and if you dont know the population growth in china is near 0% ). I mean with 10+ years of Sky in NZ we have at max 60% household penetration?
RFC1918 is not big enough. IPv4 is barely big enough. It has to go to IPv6.
Call me stupid but then why not just use IPv6 address space for your 100 million comcast clients and billion set top boxes in china? That being said the discussion has been very interesting and I wonder if any economist has used scarcity modeling on predicting the final 'run up' of IPv4 space. -- Steven Heath +64 21 706-067 I'll click on yours if you'll click on mine.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2f101fcf3ebe2a8ce5902b8845fa6600.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Comcast believe they need IPv6, as soon as possible, just to manage their cable modems. At the moment that is a problem, because you need DOCSIS 3.0 to support IPv6, and that is very new. You may argue that Comcast were mistaken, and that there are better ways to do it, but they don't seem to think so at the moment. (I could find citations for these statements, but I've got a meeting in a few minutes so I beg your forbearance). NAT is not the answer, because of SIP, if nothing else. It can be argued that the last thing the Internet needed was another NAT unfriendly protocol, but that is what SIP is. I happen to like SIP a lot---at least it is much preferable to the alternatives---and the current directions are very much in favour of SIP. But, essentially SIP + NAT = Does not work. If your application level gateway has to look inside a packet and rewrite it because of NAT, *and* you are using encrypted transport (SIPS), you are out of luck. Alas, most SIP phones don't yet support IPv6. (/me grinds teeth.) The sky may not be falling, IPv6 may not be perfect, but I still think we need to adopt it sooner rather than later. -- Michael Newbery IP Architect TelstraClear Limited
participants (5)
-
Jonny Martin
-
Michael Newbery
-
Philip D'Ath
-
Scott Weeks
-
Steven Heath