>-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Whittle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:49 PM >To: Routing Research Group; Steven Blake >Subject: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass adoption >of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users > >Hi Steve, > >In "Re: [RRG] Re: Practical Proposals vs. endless theoretical >discussions", you wrote: > >> In five years there will be > 2 billion new cell phones with IP >> stacks. How do you propose to provide global connectivity to >> these? > >I usually mention that cellphones and perhaps some captive users >with no alternatives in China are likely to use IPv6 in large >numbers. For brevity, I didn't mention it in the message you quote. > >Since the cellphone has its own inbuilt applications and typically >local sources of stuff the mobile carrier is trying to sell to the >customer, there is no major barrier to using IPv6. > >I suspect that many carriers will want to give their customers a >public IP address, IPv4 or IPv6. If they do that, the end-user can >run their own VoIP software and bypass the carrier's voice system. >The end-user might also be more able to purchase services, video >etc. (AKA "content") from other companies than the carrier or its >affiliates. > >I don't have any direct knowledge of IPv6 in China - its just >something I heard of, which sounds likely. I guess those people >would not have a choice of an IPv4 service, because there is only >one ISP in their area. > >All these are new users. > >For the next 5 or 10 or whatever years, I doubt that there will be >an IPv6 routing scaling problem. I think that the predicted masses >of cellphone customers and likewise lots of users behind some >massive ISPs in China will be connected via large ISPs, I guess with >a small number of BGP advertised prefixes. > >I think that there would only be unsustainable growth in the number >of IPv6 BGP routes if there was a widespread general uptake of IPv6 >by end users - including those who want to sell things to the >legions of predicted mobile users. A routing scaling problem for >IPv6 would emerge if there was a few hundred thousand of these >organisations who decided they need to be on IPv6, and that they >want multihomed and/or portable space so badly that they get their >own PI space. Maybe this will happen.
Who says there needs to be growth in the number of IPv6 BGP routes? If we map/encaps the entire IPv6 space as an overlay over the existing IPv4 Internet, we keep IPv6 prefixes out of the BGP routing tables and we get to scale through mapping w/o affecting routing scaling. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] >There is only one routing scaling problem at present - IPv4. The >only way IPv6 will help with that is if enough ordinary end-users >like present-day end-users, with desktop PCs, applications, servers, >server farms, hosting companies, office networks etc. decide that >they want to pay for a service which is IPv6-only, and at the most >share a single IPv4 address via something like Dual Stack Lite. > >It is really hard for me to imagine this happening - search for >"lite" at: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/maillist.html. > >Other folks have no trouble imagining this sort of thing. But they >have been imagining this for over a decade, and it hasn't happened >yet. > >They tend to think of the IPv4 sky falling in ca. 2011 when the >fresh blocks of unused address space are snapped up, but I think >this will be the start of a long period of using the space more >intensively. I think there is a lot of scope for doing this, and >that for a very long time it will be cheaper and better to keep >looking after customers with connectivity to the Internet they want >and need: IPv4, rather than trying to sell them a service to some >other Internet which only connects to a fraction of users. > >I am not saying that there won't be a significant number of captive >home/office customers and cell-phone users on IPv6 in by 2018 or >perhaps 2013 - they may well be quite a few. I am not saying that >IPv4 will go forever, or that IPv4 NAT is a good thing. I am not >yet convinced by the various arguments for why large numbers of >current end-users and their like will adopt IPv6-only services >inside 10 years. > > - Robin > > >-- >to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the >word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. >archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg