Subject: RE: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:55:00 -0800

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> BTW, giving out /64s is one reason why the IPv6 address space 
> will be exhausted in barely more time than was required to 
> exhaust the IPv4 address space.

That is not a real problem.

There are two concerns here. The first is running out of address space, the
second is running out of routing table space. 

Vast swaths of address space are reserved in ways that make it possible to
effectively deploy IPv7 within subsets of the IPv6 address space. 

It is not practical to manage router tables with greater than 2^64 entries.
In fact it is impractical to manage router tables with more than 2^48
entries using technology forseable in the next ten or so years.

The other side of the coin is the fact that many devices will effectively
require no more than a /128 because of the way they connect up to the
network. For example cell phones will be serviced on plans where the
subscription fee is per device. Verizon, T-mobile, cingular need no more
than one /64 each to service those networks.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:00:50 -0500

> subscription fee is per device.

it's perfectly reasonable to connect a small network to a cell phone.

---

From: Markku Savela <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:09:05 +0300

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

> than one /64 each to service those networks.

Uhh...

- I thought they actually do (should) give /64 per phone, so that
  standar IPv6 address configuration works (you get IPv6 link local
  and global addresses from RA).

- phone can use more that one address if you use the phone connection
  to link your local network to the global internet without NAT,
  (needs some "nasty" ND-proxy hacks though..)

All Symbian phones have full IPv4/IPv6 dual stack on them already.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:56:15 +1100

> than one /64 each to service those networks.

	Well I see cell phones as routers for the on body IPv6 bluetooth
	network.

	I see cell phones as routers for your laptop.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:07:52 -0800 (PST)

> 	Well I see cell phones as routers for the on body IPv6 bluetooth

I find it interesting that our vision is frequently so short-sighted that 
we can't even envision in the course of an arguement the applications that 
are possible today let alone the ones that people will want in the future.

> 	I see cell phones as routers for your laptop.

they are now really...

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked]
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:40:38 +0200

> That is not a real problem.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard _that_.  Eight bits,
sixteen bits, thirty-two bits, sixty-four bits, and now 128 bits ...
they are all "good for eternity" for at least a few years, and then
suddenly they are out of space.

> It is not practical to manage router tables with greater than 2^64
> entries. In fact it is impractical to manage router tables with more
> than 2^48 entries using technology forseable in the next ten or so
> years.

It will never be possible to put an entire gigabyte of memory into a
computer.  Processor speeds cannot exceed around 10 MIPS without
running into fundamental physical barriers.  The maximum transmission
speed of a modem can never exceed 2400 bps.

> than one /64 each to service those networks.

No more than 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses each?  Well, that's
comforting.  But I suspect they will run out, anyway, for the same
reason that all address spaces run out.

Throwing away essentially the entire address space (/64) from the
beginning is not a good sign.  It just demonstrates that the address
space will be exhausted in linear time, not exponential time.

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:47:38 +0200

> are possible today let alone the ones that people will want in the future.

And one consequence of this is that we cannot possibly know today how
to allocate address for the future, which is another reason why
address spaces are exhausted to quickly, no matter how many bits they
contain.  And this in turn is why IPv6 won't last.