From: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "IP space is not 'scarce' anymore..."?
===== If you flip the AM/FM bit to 1, you double the address space but not in both directions. When you add the 4 bits in both directions for TOS Routing, you get a 16x expansion. When you add the 7 bits in both directions for RIFRAF Routing, you get another 128x expansion. Numerous /8s are now exposed as available, that used to be hoaded prior to liberation from the Postel regime. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Each /8 becomes 2,047 more /8s and the AM/FM doubles that...and that is just for the DMZ Cloud connecting the GKs and PKs...the PKs have their own transport and addressing... Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Dan Lanciani'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:55 AM Subject: RE: Charge for traffic, not IP addresses (Was: RE: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing) > Dan Lanciani wrote: > > > "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > | > > |> NO - Do NOT Deprecate Site-Local Addressing. > > |> > > |> There are reason to use site-locals, and reason NOT to use > > them. But > > |> "FORBIDDING" people will only alienate them and lead them to > > |> find ways to do it anyway. > > |> > > |> Perfect example, when (or should I say IF) my home ISP goes > > |> to IPv6, they charge per IP. Always have, and always will. > > |> Sure, they will gladly give me a range of IPs, as well as > > |> gladly charge me as if each were a PC. Also, > > |> when I get tired of putting up with the abuse from this > > |> particular ISP and decide to choose another ISP to abuse me, > > |> I will still have the same issue. > > | > > |Very good example that you don't get it at all. > > |ISP's should be charging for traffic, not for IP's. > > > > So why don't you make the ISPs work the way you think they should? > > Then NAT would go away and you wouldn't have to try to ban it. NAT > > is the effect, not the cause. > > That's the IPv4 world. The ISP's will have to get inside > their heads that IP space is not 'scarce' anymore. > Fortunatly most RIR's will tell them that when they > request an allocation and I even suspect that when an ISP > get 'caught' for not passing out the correct bits down > to their clients that they can be requested to return > their allocation as they are not using it anyways. > > The IPv4 mentality should go. IPv6 != IPv4 fortunatly ;) > > Btw most ISP's I know charge for traffic, though basically > they say 'this is the "fair use limit"', whenever you pass > it you have to pay up, hard. Extra IPv4 IP's can usually > be requested for an additional fee, but that's mostly > an administration hurdle. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
