[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 22, Issue 9

[Stephen J. Mahler]

Throwing caution to the wind, and becoming involved in this discussion ...

I suggest that the problem is not getting people out of the IPV4 address
space,  the problem is getting them into the IPv6 space.  If moving to IPV6
is easy, interesting, has a clear benefit, and worked as more of a long term
project than a flash cut... they will move.

The existing IPV4 address space is a tiny fraction of the IPV6 space.
Follow the lead of Madison Ave. ... give away samples.  GIVE each existing
address space owner (OK, not really the owner) an upsized chunk of the new
space.  Let the computers handle the application for the space, just copy
the registration information.  Each IPV4 Class C is given a range equal in
size to a IPV4 class B.   Each Class B is given a range equal to a current
Class A.  Each Class A is given a SUPER-A.

Make this the last time you have to worry about your existing address space
between now and your retirement.  Make the advantage of switching to IPV6
that you have room to operate and test for years to come.  Make it a reason
to work thru the headaches of using IPV6.

You won't have to worry about closing down IPV4 if there are advantages to
moving to IPV6.  If the only advantage to switching to IPV6 is that IPV4 is
closing down tomorrow, everyone will wait till the day before.

...STeve

Stephen J. Mahler, Director
Information Networks
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
http://info.louisiana.edu/mahler
337-482-6418 voice  337-482-2489 fax

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> >Iljitsch van Beijnum
> >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 2:52 PM
> >To: Sean Reifschneider
> >Cc: ppml at arin.net
> >Subject: Re: [ppml] My view on IPv4 (was: Re: IPv4 wind-down)
> >
> >
> >
> >This is very true, and will largely remain true as IPv4 space runs
> >out. People who have IPv4 space today won't have a problem, it's the
> >people who need more address space when there no longer is any who
> >will be in a bind, because at that point, the vast majority of all
> >internet users will still only be reachable over IPv4. This means
> >massive amounts of NAT. This is not the nice, friendly NAT where you
> >have three PCs behind your Linksys DSL router and you get to forward
> >ports so fussy applications like VoIP still work.
> >
> >It will be the kind of NAT where a service provider puts 10, 100 or
> >even 1000 customers behind a single IP address, and the number of
> >usable TCP ports starts being a problem. Forget about port mappings
> >and hence any applications that are more complex than client-server.
>
> I'm not sure that this is going to be the sticking point with IPv6-IPv4
> NAT.
>
> I suspect the real problem is fundamentally this.  Looking out on the
> Internet from the IPv4 initiator's point of view, you have a total
> number of connectable addresses of X.  However in the IPv6 world the
> total connectable number of addresses is Y, and Y is a hell of a lot
> bigger than X.  So how do you map a large set to a small set?  Kind
> of like wearing a set of eyeglasses with everything but a tiny little
> dot on the lenses covered up with paint.
>
> Sure, you can probably do it through any number of schemes, but all
> of these are going to be a lot more complicated than the typical NAT
> code in an IPv4 NAT today.  And when you add in complexity your going
> to decrease reliability and break many specific applications.
>
> On the other hand, if the connection initiator is IPv6 and the Internet
> is IPv4 that kind of NAT code should be trivially easy to write.
>
> >At that point, those users may want to add IPv6 to their heavily
> >NATed IPv4 so they can run peer-to-peer and server-to-client
> >applications in addition to client-to-server applications. Only at
> >THAT point, it will become interesting for people with enough IPv4
> >space to also support IPv6 so they can talk to those of us who are
> >behind several layers of NAT.
> >
>
> It seems to me in your typical "windows-user-on-a-DSL-line" paradigm
> that it would be far far easier to have the NAT router dynamically assign
> IPv6 only to the Windows user, and the NAT router itself would be
> dual-stacked.
>
>
> Ted
>