Maybe there is a case to have IPv6 used for Globally addressable services and v4 (locally specific) for closed garden services. chris(a)chrishellberg.com wrote:

My mail app doesn't do quoting sorry :(

Peter,

Agree, it's not black and white and you raise many pertinent questions. But one of the governing factors should be that a shortage of addresses[1] shouldn't restrict my network design. Not saying that you need to be wasteful. Just that NAT or some proxy equivalent shouldn't be the the solution to the address squeeze[1].

/Chris

[1] maybe there is an address shortage, maybe there isn't..not terribly important for this point.

----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Youngquest To: NZNOG Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:50:35 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)

As much as I find this topic boring :-)

I doubt the answer is as black and white as some would like.

Exposing the evolving subscriber premise to the "world" as such may reduce some problems but obviously increases others.

I think it is fair to say alot of this is a balancing game. If you expose the subscriber premise to the service core (CSCF sort of area) you increase loading at the service core. This is not a good thing considering the stability of these pieces of the network at this stage. No vendor rants to that statement pls. IMS/SIP gateways are being developed that reduce Service Core loading but still how much of the home is exposed and how much isn't. Also there are a number of initiatives working currently to further define the home, how the CPE will interact with upstream - each other, QoS on the home segment etc etc

If the subscriber premise is exposed to network and as Dave pointed out earlier there are a number of less than trivial considerations. Address management, device management, Security,introducing new devices to the home (another Dick Smith VoIP phone), point of demarcation etc etc.

Also is there a need to expose all the devices globally. STBs would only need visibility to the service providers, VoIP phones to the SBC/SBG, fridge to the mail server :-D

Also there are the various styles of network connectivity: - single pipe, MUX UNI that will have impact on the addressing schemes.

To state that having "20million subs and requiring v6 for management" as a poster child for v6 is not a good look. There are other ways of approaching this - distribution and hierarchy to me sounds feasible.

Last time I looked the sky is above us. What is happening is we are moving into an interesting time where the evolution of the subscriber premise will very much determine how the networks will look.

Rgds

Peter