Tomas L. Byrnes wrote: > IPv4 has enough addresses for every computer on Earth, and then some.
There are approximately 3.4 billion or a little less usable ip addresses. there are 3.3 billion mobile phone users buying approximately 400,000 ip capable devices a day. That's a single industy, notwithstanding how the are presently employed what do you think those deployments are going to look like in 5 years? in 10? How many ip addresses do you need to nat 100 million customers? how much state do you have to carry to do port demux for their traffic? I guess making it all scale is someone else's problem... > That having been said, I think going to IPv6 has a lot of other benefits > that make it worthwhile. > > YMMV, IANAL, yadda yadda yadda > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:39 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [NANOG] fair warning: less than 1000 days left to IPv4 >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Ward) writes: >> >>>> That also doesn't take into account how many /8's are >> being hoarded >>>> by organizations that don't need even 25% of that space. >>> Unless you're expecting those organisations to be really >> nice and make >>> that address space available to other organisations (ie. their RIR/ >>> LIR, or the highest bidder on ebay), ... >> first, a parable: >> >> in datacenters, it used to be that the scarce resource was >> rack space, but then it was connectivity, and now it's >> power/heat/cooling. there are fallow fields of empty racks >> too far from fiber routes or power grids to be filled, all >> because the scarcity selector has moved over time. some >> folks who were previously close to fiber routes and/or power >> grids found that they could do greenfield construction and >> that the customers would naturally move in, since too much >> older datacenter capacity was unusable by modern standards. >> >> then, a recounting: >> >> michael dillon asked a while back what could happen if MIT >> (holding 18/8) were to go into the ISP business, offering >> dialup and/or tunnel/VPN access, and bundling a /24 with each >> connection, and allowing each customer to multihome if they >> so chose. nobody could think of an RIR rule, or an ISP rule, >> or indeed anything else that could prevent this from >> occurring. now, i don't think that MIT would do this, since >> it would be a distraction for them, and they probably don't >> need the money, and they're good guys, anyway. >> >> now, a prediction: >> >> but if the bottom feeding scumsuckers who saw the opportunity >> now known as spam, or the ones who saw the opportunity now >> known as NXDOMAIN remapping, or the ones who saw the >> opportunity now known as DDoS for hire, realize that the next >> great weakness in the internet's design and protocols is >> explosive deaggregation by virtual shill networking, then we >> can expect business plans whereby well suited shysters march >> into MIT, and HP, and so on, offering to outsource this >> monetization. "you get half the money but none of the >> distraction, all you have to do is renumber or use NAT or >> IPv6, we'll do the rest." nothing in recorded human history >> argues against this occurring. >> -- >> Paul Vixie >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> NANOG@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
