On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:20:01 -0600
Max Pierson wrote:
> >I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
> addresses
> >in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
> and
> >then some.
>
> As Roland said,
> "Possibly, as long as we don't blow t
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:41 -0500
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster
In message , Per
Carlson writes:
> Hi Owen.
>
> > The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of =
> auto-topology
> > management that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend /4=
> 8 instead.
>
> I've seen this claim (you need a /48) from your side sever
Hi Owen.
> The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of
> auto-topology
> management that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend /48
> instead.
I've seen this claim (you need a /48) from your side several times,
but never seen any explanation why a /5
On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are talking
>> about a "business class" service. Even with my static IPs at home, I have
>> no need for more than a single /64
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Security and logical division are a few ideas.
You might not care to do that now... but in 20 years, when you have
10 smart chip / IP-based home automation enabled devices on your
LAN.
My helpdesk decided to counter with "We'll run out because of t
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I expect that in ~3 years, we will see dual-stack and /64's handed out in
> conjunction with an IPv4 address as "common".
> The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for >end-site are t
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are
talking about a "business class" service. Even with my static IPs at
home, I have no need for more than a single /64 to be used in my wildest
dreams. I could live with ~256 ips for the
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:04:31 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> > On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are
> > talking about a "business class" service. Even with my static IPs at
> > home, I have no need for more than a single /6
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
>>> I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time f
>I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
addresses
>in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
and
>then some.
As Roland said,
"Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
nobody has heretofore thought of
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
>> I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think if it takes 11
>> years
>> it will be because o
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
> I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think if it takes 11
> years
> it will be because of significant foot-dragging by some key organizations.
> I'm
>V4 30 years ago -- expected consumption: ~60 /8s of 256.
>IPv6 today -- expected consumption: Maybe 15 /12s of 4096.
>The scales in question are vastly different.
I made no such comparison between the two. The scales are vastly different,
but I think you're still missing my point. 30 years ago, n
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough addresses in to allow for things
> nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years and then some.
Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
nobody has heretofore th
On Jan 26, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
> >V4 30 years ago -- expected consumption: ~60 /8s of 256.
> >IPv6 today -- expected consumption: Maybe 15 /12s of 4096.
> >The scales in question are vastly different.
>
> I made no such comparison between the two. The scales are vastly different
On Jan 25, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
> >I think you may still be missing my point...
> >There are way more /48s available than will ever get used.
> >There are way more /32s available than will ever get used.
>
> No, I think you're missing my point. Your statements above are of your
At 22-07-28164 20:59, Max Pierson wrote:
> From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a
that long. I think the
> plug will get pulled by ISPs desperate to reduce the spiraling costs of
> continuing to support IPv4. When it starts becoming increasingly expensive
> to get ISPs to provide IPv4 services, the rest of the internet will begin to
> move rapidly away from IPv4.
&g
y expensive to get ISPs to
provide IPv4 services, the rest of the internet will begin to move rapidly away
from IPv4.
I anticipate this will take about 5-10 years after IPv4 runout at
ARIN/APNIC/RIPE (which will be nearly simultaneous).
Owen
> Once again, thanks for all on and off list
ff list responses!
Max
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Max Pierson wrote:
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
> > that I cannot get a solid answer on
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:19:34 -0600
Max Pierson wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
> that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
> that I do, it will probably change down the road any
On Jan 25, 2011, at 12:03 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>> Second, as I was crunching a few numbers to get a rough estimate of what a
>>> global table would look like in say 3 or 5 years after v4 is exhausted (I
>>> understand that it's completely unpredictable to do this, but curiosi
On 1/25/2011 10:19, Max Pierson wrote:
>
>>From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
> accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
> someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
> accepting anything smaller t
> > Second, as I was crunching a few numbers to get a rough estimate of what a
> > global table would look like in say 3 or 5 years after v4 is exhausted (I
> > understand that it's completely unpredictable to do this, but curiosity
> > killed the cat I guess), and in a few cases, I stopped due to
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Max Pierson wrote:
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a /
> From: Max Pierson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:20 AM
> To: nanog group
> Subject: Another v6 question
>
>
> >From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most
are
> accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read
&g
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Max Pierson wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
> that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
> that I do, it will probably change down the road any
Hi List,
Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
that I do, it will probably change down the road anyways), but here goes.
>From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-len
29 matches
Mail list logo
