Oops, I didn't send this one to the list.
scott
--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz 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.
Comcast has all of them in one AS? Similarly, China will have all 1B customers in one AS? If not, they can use the same 1918 space in each one. Also, Comcast are not going to have 100M IPTV subscribers. I got this from www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=2685
"In 2001, partly in response to those demands, AT&T agreed to fold its cable systems with those of Comcast Corp., creating the largest ever cable operator with more than 22 million customers."
"Cable’s high-speed Internet service ended the quarter (Third Quarter of 2005) with 24.3 million subscribers, and the number of digital cable customers had grown to 27.6 million."
This is in the US only, though.
scott
-----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
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Scott Weeks wrote:
Comcast has all of them in one AS? Similarly, China will have all 1B customers in one AS? If not, they can use the same 1918 space in each one. Also, Comcast are not going to have 100M IPTV subscribers. I got this from www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=2685
Which is more complicated? Managing overlapping address blocks, probably in a system which was never designed to do that, or moving to a unique IP address per endpoint? (Also probably in a system which was never designed for IPv6) --David
participants (2)
-
David Robb
-
Scott Weeks