-----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:28 AM To: Chris Campbell Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
On Apr 19, 2010, at 3:16 AM, Chris Campbell wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2010, at 03:52, joel jaeggli wrote: > >> On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: >>> Franck Martin wrote: >>>> Sure the internet will not die... >>>> >>>> But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not have completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen? >>>> >>> >>> Reality is that as soon as SSL web servers and SSL-capable web browsers >>> have support for name-based virtual hosts, the number of IPv4 addresses >>> required will drop. Right now, you need 1 IP address for 1 SSL site; >>> SNI spec of SSL gets rid of that. >> >> my load balancer needs 16 ips for every million simultaneous >> connections, so does yours. >> > > I'm pretty sure that's not the case for inbound connections... > > http://vegan.net/pipermail/lb-l/2008-June/000871.html > Depends on which side of the loadbalancer you're talking about and how it is configured. Owen Sounds like he is talking about a source NAT pool. If the box will support a million simultaneous PATS, it takes 16 addresses to make a PAT pool of that size. But if you are routing in the data center they can be private, as only the real servers will see them. If you had a need to do 1 arm across the Internet a single NAT pool would provide service for a large number of VIPS. These are featuress of an ACE.
