Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote: and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33 networks, meaning we could cram it into a /15. So even if we have 10 /48s at home from different providers, we're still only using a small fraction of the first /3. If we get this wrong, we have several more /3s to get it right in. People aren't going to be the big consumers of address space relative to machines . You already know this, and I can't really believe that people sat down in the 70ties and 80ties and said there is never going to be more than 128 large corporations that need a /8 in IPv4 ? Emergent phenomena were not (and generaly are not) predicted. 32 bits was a lot more than 8 which was the previous go around.. I start to get worried when people want to map 32 bits into IPv6 in several places, for instance telling all ISPs that they can have a /24 so that we can produce IPv4 mapped /56 to end customer, and make this space permanent. Temporary is fine, permanent is not. or the application of semantic meaning to intermediate bits. and yeah the IPv6 bit field looks a lot smaller when you start carving off it in 24 bit or shorter chunks. So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't dual stack. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 Not true but it certainly sounds logical to the average person. What creates this impression is that there is no deadline. The IPv4 - Dual Stack - pure IPv6 transition is complex so everyone focuses on IPv4 - Dual Stack forgetting that it is a transition step. The final step seems so far off that people ignore it, and therefore the justification for the first step fades. (the remainder of this post is brainstorming; apply a grain of salt) There are ways to fix this. For example there was a deadline for when Dual Stack was to go away, a Dual Stack 10 year count-down would drive the point home. However nothing like this exists. This thread is making me think that I should change how I talk about IPv6 publicly. I need to put more emphasis on DS as being a temporary thing. It is in my mind but perhaps not in how I speak. The problem with picking a 10-year or 5-year campaign is that underestimating the amount of time makes us look like the sky is falling and too long gives people a reason to procrastinate. Then again... I believe what will make the biggest # of people adopt IPv6 will be if they see everyone else adopting it. That's why it is so important for IPv6 to be offered by default to all new ISP customers, that tech-savy enterprises need to deploy it, and so on. It is all about building a critical mass. Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference; http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of the Earth’s Surface. There's a great article on the myths and debunks of the address space at http://rednectar.net/2012/05/24/just-how-many-ipv6-addresses-are-there-really/ one of the things it talks about is the /64 and /48 allocation. snip Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 address allocations per user in the world. /snip - Mitch - On 17/09/12 04:23, Randy Bush wrote: [ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ] We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best Practice deployment. while i am not totally convinced, i am certainly concerned. we are doing many of the same things all over again. remember when rip forced a homogenous, often classful, mask length in a network and we chewed through /24s? think /64 in ipv6, except it's half the bits not 1/4 of them. remember when we gave out As and Bs willy nilly? look at the giant swaths of v6 we give out today in the hopes that someone will deploy it. and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to happen in a decade or two? --srs (htc one x) On Sep 17, 2012 5:58 PM, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,* *374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of the Earth’s Surface. There's a great article on the myths and debunks of the address space at http://rednectar.net/2012/05/**24/just-how-many-ipv6-** addresses-are-there-really/http://rednectar.net/2012/05/24/just-how-many-ipv6-addresses-are-there-really/one of the things it talks about is the /64 and /48 allocation. snip Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 address allocations per user in the world. /snip - Mitch - On 17/09/12 04:23, Randy Bush wrote: [ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ] We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best Practice deployment. while i am not totally convinced, i am certainly concerned. we are doing many of the same things all over again. remember when rip forced a homogenous, often classful, mask length in a network and we chewed through /24s? think /64 in ipv6, except it's half the bits not 1/4 of them. remember when we gave out As and Bs willy nilly? look at the giant swaths of v6 we give out today in the hopes that someone will deploy it. and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Has said forum guy never heard of a phased implementation? Or would he rather a big bang cut over, i'm sure that will work swell. The best way to summarise the feeling for IPv6 was expressed in the Packet Pushers Podcast and that is Network Administrators and System Administrators have forgotten what it means to run a multiple stack Network. I also think many people are seeing IPv6 as a unnecessary evil due to the way it has come around and that comes back to the whole your doomed theory and we are only upgrading because there is a depletion, This comes back to a lack of understanding and lack of interest in change. I cannot remember where i heard it, but someone said that it will take a killer IPv6 application that cannot occur on v4 to get people to jump. I'm sure if Facebook/Google decided they were sick of v4 for a week you would see I.T. departments agenda change quite rapidly (obviously this isn't sustainable) Education seems to be the key here... Rusty gears is the problem, people haven't had to worry about addressing for such a long time now. Feel kinda sorry for the guys who have to readdress IPv6 though *mwaha* On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't dual stack. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 Not true but it certainly sounds logical to the average person. What creates this impression is that there is no deadline. The IPv4 - Dual Stack - pure IPv6 transition is complex so everyone focuses on IPv4 - Dual Stack forgetting that it is a transition step. The final step seems so far off that people ignore it, and therefore the justification for the first step fades. (the remainder of this post is brainstorming; apply a grain of salt) There are ways to fix this. For example there was a deadline for when Dual Stack was to go away, a Dual Stack 10 year count-down would drive the point home. However nothing like this exists. This thread is making me think that I should change how I talk about IPv6 publicly. I need to put more emphasis on DS as being a temporary thing. It is in my mind but perhaps not in how I speak. The problem with picking a 10-year or 5-year campaign is that underestimating the amount of time makes us look like the sky is falling and too long gives people a reason to procrastinate. Then again... I believe what will make the biggest # of people adopt IPv6 will be if they see everyone else adopting it. That's why it is so important for IPv6 to be offered by default to all new ISP customers, that tech-savy enterprises need to deploy it, and so on. It is all about building a critical mass. Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference; http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. [m] 0432 35 4224 [w@] jason dot leschnik at ansto dot gov dot aujason.lesch...@ansto.gov.au [U@] jml...@uow.edu.au
GoDaddy down again?
Hi All, Does anyone knows whether GoDaddy is having problems again? (I'm not able to reach some sites). Thanks Takashi Tome
Re: GoDaddy down again?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:23:43AM -0300, Takashi Tome taka...@cpqd.com.br wrote a message of 8 lines which said: Does anyone knows whether GoDaddy is having problems again? Post *details*! dig, traceroute, etc Unlike the last outage, their name servers appear to work fine.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote: snip Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 address allocations per user in the world. /snip It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage... Regards, aid
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies can help mitigate this risk, which is something the upper blocks normally adhere too.. but with the lower blocks its in the hands of the smaller companies and consumers who don't *always* have the same rigorous standards. On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote: snip Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 address allocations per user in the world. /snip It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage... Regards, aid
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't dual stack. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 Not true but it certainly sounds logical to the average person. What creates this impression is that there is no deadline. The IPv4 - Dual Stack - pure IPv6 transition is complex so everyone focuses on IPv4 - Dual Stack forgetting that it is a transition step. The final step seems so far off that people ignore it, and therefore the justification for the first step fades. (the remainder of this post is brainstorming; apply a grain of salt) There are ways to fix this. For example there was a deadline for when Dual Stack was to go away, a Dual Stack 10 year count-down would drive the point home. However nothing like this exists. This thread is making me think that I should change how I talk about IPv6 publicly. I need to put more emphasis on DS as being a temporary thing. It is in my mind but perhaps not in how I speak. I tell folks that if ipv4 run-out is the problem in eyeball networks, then DS cannot be the solution since it has the same problematic reliance on a scarce ipv4 resource. I spent a lot of time focusing on ipv6-only networking for mobile and in many cases, thanks to world v6 launch and ipv6-only based access network transition schemes (ds-lite, MAP, 464xlat) they can provide a solution for eyeball networks that is one step away from ipv6-only. Instead of DS, which is just one step beyond ipv4-only with a foggy road to getting off scarce / expensive / broken ipv4 Content networks are a different beast that must be dual-stack to reach all the eyeballs CB The problem with picking a 10-year or 5-year campaign is that underestimating the amount of time makes us look like the sky is falling and too long gives people a reason to procrastinate. Then again... I believe what will make the biggest # of people adopt IPv6 will be if they see everyone else adopting it. That's why it is so important for IPv6 to be offered by default to all new ISP customers, that tech-savy enterprises need to deploy it, and so on. It is all about building a critical mass. Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference; http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. Nick
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Regards, Adrian * At least for RIPE.
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional justification if needed. Mike -Original Message- From: Adrian Bool [mailto:a...@logic.org.uk] Sent: 17 September 2012 15:55 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Regards, Adrian * At least for RIPE.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote: I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Regards, Adrian * At least for RIPE. Note you say default, as in beginning point, not maximum. -Blake
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote: Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Amen, brother! I was doing that particular computation about six months ago when we had our first request and arrived at the same conclusion. I've concluded that /48 for businesses and /56 for residential sites is the more reasonable approach until we start getting /24 IPv6 allocations for LIRs and I think many others have concluded the same. - Mark
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of the Earth’s Surface. Yes. But figure an average subnet has, what, maybe 5 hosts on it? (Sure, there's some bigger ones, but a whole lot of my router, my PC, and maybe my printer networks too. So even if you could use all the top bits (which you can't, as many combinations are reserved), that's more like 92,233,720,368,547,758,080. And if you lop off the top three bits and just count the space currently assigned to Global Unicast, that's 11,529,215,046,068,469,760. Which is 0.02 per square mm of the earth's surface. Or just over 2 per square centimeter. Powers of two get big fast... but they get small fast too. Matthew Kaufman
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Hi Mike, On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins mike.simk...@sungard.com wrote: RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional justification if needed. Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here. 32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size to LIRs, allowing them construct their addressing plan in a logical, hierarchal manner whilst allowing for growth - and most importantly ensuring they only advertise a single route into the global routing table. Kind regards, Adrian
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote: Hi Mike, On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins mike.simk...@sungard.com wrote: RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional justification if needed. Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here. 32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size to LIRs, allowing them construct their addressing plan in a logical, hierarchal manner whilst allowing for growth - and most importantly ensuring they only advertise a single route into the global routing table. Which fine except we have assignment practices that have the result requiring the allocation of much shorter prefixes. Just handing out /32s fails the objective reality test. Regarding the single route, no they don't. and nobody that I know is filtering on /32 or longer. Kind regards, Adrian
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On 17/09/2012 00:42, Masataka Ohta wrote: OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large, which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost. So, what you're saying here is that a wifi network with lots of packet loss will cause connectivity problems with ipv6? Nick
FW: [arin-announce] Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Now Available to ARIN Customers
Hi This announcement may be of interest to many of you. Regards, Mark From: INFO i...@arin.netmailto:i...@arin.net Date: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:59 AM To: arin-annou...@arin.netmailto:arin-annou...@arin.net arin-annou...@arin.netmailto:arin-annou...@arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Now Available to ARIN Customers ARIN is proud to announce that ARIN resource holders with either a signed RSA or LRSA may now participate in RPKI through ARIN Online. Additionally, those wishing to validate RPKI information may do so after requesting a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL). ARIN’s TAL is required to validate information from ARIN’s RPKI repository. RPKI is a free, opt-in service that allows users to certify their Internet number resources to help secure Internet routing. This initiative has been developed within the IETF's SIDR Working Group, with involvement from Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and numerous Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ARIN encourages members of the Internet community to certify their resources through RPKI. Internet routing today is vulnerable to hijacking and the provisioning/use of certificates is one of steps required to make routing more secure. Widespread RPKI adoption will help simplify IP address holder verification and routing decision-making on the Internet. ARIN plans to continually review and improve RPKI based upon user feedback. Users are encouraged to report any issues via the arin-tech-discuss mailing list. For more information about this crucial step in securing Internet routing as well as future enhancement plans, visit ARIN’s RPKI Home Page at https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/index.html. Regards, Mark Kosters Chief Technical Officer (CTO) American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)
Another measure of the size of the IPv6 address space... Back on World IPv6 Day in June 2011, Dartware had a barbecue. (Why? Because the burgers had 128 (bacon) bits and we served IP(A) to drink :-) You can see some photos at: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/scenes-ipv6-day-barbecue But we came up with another interesting measure for the vastness of the IPv6 address space: If an IPv4 hamburger patty has 2^32 (4.2 billion) unique addresses in its 1/4 inch thickness, how thick would an IPv6 hamburger be (with 2^128 unique addresses)? The answer is... 53 billion light-years. It's straightforward unit conversions. There are 2^96 IPv4 Hamburgers at a quarter-inch apiece. That's 2^96 inches/4 (2^94 inches). Switching to decimal units, 1.98x10^32 inches; 1.65x10^27 feet; 3.13x10^23 miles; and then continuing to convert to light-years. A good tool for this kind of wacky unit conversion is Frink (http://futureboy.us/fsp/frink.fsp?fromVal=2%5E94+inchestoVal=lightyears), which can do this in one shot. Simply enter: From: 2^94 inches To: lightyears and you'll see the answer! Rich Brownrichard.e.br...@dartware.com Dartware, LLC http://www.intermapper.com 66-7 Benning Street Telephone: 603-643-9600 West Lebanon, NH 03784-3407 Fax: 603-643-2289
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 16, 2012, at 20:23 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: [ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ] We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best Practice deployment. while i am not totally convinced, i am certainly concerned. we are doing many of the same things all over again. remember when rip forced a homogenous, often classful, mask length in a network and we chewed through /24s? think /64 in ipv6, except it's half the bits not 1/4 of them. remember when we gave out As and Bs willy nilly? look at the giant swaths of v6 we give out today in the hopes that someone will deploy it. and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project that would connect universities, research institutions and some military installations. In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous. Our estimation of humongous didn't change, the usage of the network changed dramatically. The experiment escaped from the laboratory and took on a life of its own. Once that happened, the realization that 32 bits wasn't enough was very nearly immediate. The IPv6 address space offers 61 bits of network numbers each of which holds up to 64 bits worth of hosts. Obviously you never want to fill one of those subnets (nor could you with any available hardware), but it means that you don't have to waste time thinking about rightsizing network assignments. I won't say we will never run out of IPv6 address space, but I will say that I'll be surprised if IPv6 doesn't hit a different limit first. Guess what... If it turns out that our current behavior with respect to IPv6 addresses is ill-advised, then, we have 6+ more copies of the current IPv6 address space where we can try different allocation strategies. Rather than fretting about the perils of using the protocol as intended, let's deploy it, get a working end-to-end internet and see where we stand. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 16, 2012, at 16:58 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them. For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that techniques from IPv4 to map who's doing what where don't scale. Well, in IPv4... NAT broke it, because networks implementing 1:many NAT could no longer easily identify what host was responsible for abuse. I realize that's a problem in theory, in practice it's not because it's still rare to have interestingly different hosts behind a single NAT. CGN should solve that and convert theory to practice quite effectively. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-) Owen On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote: That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies can help mitigate this risk, which is something the upper blocks normally adhere too.. but with the lower blocks its in the hands of the smaller companies and consumers who don't *always* have the same rigorous standards. On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote: snip Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 address allocations per user in the world. /snip It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage... Regards, aid
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:55 , Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote: Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Don't think of it as the default allocation, think of it as the minimum allocation. You can very easily get a much larger allocation if you have more than 30,000 customers. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of the Earth’s Surface. Yes. But figure an average subnet has, what, maybe 5 hosts on it? (Sure, there's some bigger ones, but a whole lot of my router, my PC, and maybe my printer networks too. So even if you could use all the top bits (which you can't, as many combinations are reserved), that's more like 92,233,720,368,547,758,080. And if you lop off the top three bits and just count the space currently assigned to Global Unicast, that's 11,529,215,046,068,469,760. Which is 0.02 per square mm of the earth's surface. Or just over 2 per square centimeter. Powers of two get big fast... but they get small fast too. Matthew Kaufman What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:16 , Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote: On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote: Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away. This is a more difficult argument to make. I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that aside for now... The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers. So, even in IPv6 think, homes that typically have one subnet have an equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to address all of their customers. It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space, featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536 customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to large ISPs. The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation. Amen, brother! I was doing that particular computation about six months ago when we had our first request and arrived at the same conclusion. I've concluded that /48 for businesses and /56 for residential sites is the more reasonable approach until we start getting /24 IPv6 allocations for LIRs and I think many others have concluded the same. - Mark LIRs which need /24s can get /24s. /32 was never a maximum, it was merely the minimum and as such is a reasonable starting point. The vast majority of ISPs in operation today can give all their customers /48s out of a /28 and still have lots of room to spare. For larger providers, they should have no trouble justifying a much larger block. I know from experience that it is possible to get /24s in the ARIN region with reasonable justification, for example. Owen
[NANOG-announce] REMINDER: Upcoming NANOG mail list maintenance notification - 18-Sept-2012
Reminder of the upcoming Mail List service scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, 2012 beginning at 6 am Eastern, expected to last no more than 30 minutes. Regards, Randy Epstein NANOG CC Chair On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of the Earth's Surface. Yes. But figure an average subnet has, what, maybe 5 hosts on it? (Sure, there's some bigger ones, but a whole lot of my router, my PC, and maybe my printer networks too. So even if you could use all the top bits (which you can't, as many combinations are reserved), that's more like 92,233,720,368,547,758,080. And if you lop off the top three bits and just count the space currently assigned to Global Unicast, that's 11,529,215,046,068,469,760. Which is 0.02 per square mm of the earth's surface. Or just over 2 per square centimeter. Powers of two get big fast... but they get small fast too. Matthew Kaufman What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Owen http://xkcd.com/865/ -Davis
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
VMware vSphere on quad processor 1u servers with 768gb of RAM :) that should yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density. -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In message cad6ajgrbgk8fzlz-tpl3ogo4trez917sbvc_d9yhh9m28fn...@mail.gmail.com , Cameron Byrne writes: On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't dual stack. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 Not true but it certainly sounds logical to the average person. What creates this impression is that there is no deadline. The IPv4 - Dual Stack - pure IPv6 transition is complex so everyone focuses on IPv4 - Dual Stack forgetting that it is a transition step. The final step seems so far off that people ignore it, and therefore the justification for the first step fades. (the remainder of this post is brainstorming; apply a grain of salt) There are ways to fix this. For example there was a deadline for when Dual Stack was to go away, a Dual Stack 10 year count-down would drive the point home. However nothing like this exists. This thread is making me think that I should change how I talk about IPv6 publicly. I need to put more emphasis on DS as being a temporary thing. It is in my mind but perhaps not in how I speak. s I tell folks that if ipv4 run-out is the problem in eyeball networks, then DS cannot be the solution since it has the same problematic reliance on a scarce ipv4 resource. You can go dual stack today and introduce CGN / DS-lite tomorrow. The point is to light up IPv6 *now* and the simplest way to do that is DS. No one ever said DS was a long term solution. It was always only the first step along the path. I spent a lot of time focusing on ipv6-only networking for mobile and in many cases, thanks to world v6 launch and ipv6-only based access network transition schemes (ds-lite, MAP, 464xlat) they can provide a solution for eyeball networks that is one step away from ipv6-only. Instead of DS, which is just one step beyond ipv4-only with a foggy road to getting off scarce / expensive / broken ipv4 And look at the extra hacks that are needed to tether with the current mobile solution of going IPv6 only and not supporting PD from day one. Mobile networks also have the advantage of tech refresh happening as you go from 2G - 3G - 4G. Most eyeball networks are different to mobile networks. You have a large base of IPv4 based networks connected to your network which contain some IPv4 equipement that cannot be upgraded. Content networks are a different beast that must be dual-stack to reach all the eyeballs CB The problem with picking a 10-year or 5-year campaign is that underestimating the amount of time makes us look like the sky is falling and too long gives people a reason to procrastinate. Then again... I believe what will make the biggest # of people adopt IPv6 will be if they see everyone else adopting it. That's why it is so important for IPv6 to be offered by default to all new ISP customers, that tech-savy enterprises need to deploy it, and so on. It is all about building a critical mass. Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference; http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In article caarzuotqwgpbw46+xb1ngmcn1yryttpygyymppxpqqug9k6...@mail.gmail.com you write: With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to happen in a decade or two? In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. My current example of how bit IPv6 addresses are: my home LAN has a tunneled IPv6 network, and the web server on my laptop has an IPv6 address. Even though some of the stuff on the laptop is somewhat confidential, I haven't bothered to use any passwords. Why? Because guessing the random low 64 bits assigned to the web server (which are not the auto generated address from the LAN card) is at least as hard as any password scheme. R's, John
Re: Big Temporary Networks
Nick Hilliard wrote: OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large, which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost. So, what you're saying here is that a wifi network with lots of packet loss You don't understand CSMA/CA at all. There aren't so much packet losses except for broadcast/multicast packets. Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... They don't. Instead, they suffer from it. Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) That is one of a major design flaw of IPv6 as a result of failed attempt to have SLAAC, which resulted in so stateful and time wasting mechanism. As it is virtually impossible to remember IPv6 addresses, IPv6 operation is a lot harder than necessary. Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/17/2012 4:32 PM, John Levine wrote: In article caarzuotqwgpbw46+xb1ngmcn1yryttpygyymppxpqqug9k6...@mail.gmail.com you write: With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to happen in a decade or two? In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. My current example of how bit IPv6 addresses are: my home LAN has a tunneled IPv6 network, and the web server on my laptop has an IPv6 address. Even though some of the stuff on the laptop is somewhat confidential, I haven't bothered to use any passwords. Why? Because guessing the random low 64 bits assigned to the web server (which are not the auto generated address from the LAN card) is at least as hard as any password scheme. And so you never visit any websites from that laptop that might keep access logs either? You do know that lists of active IPv6 addresses are already not that hard to come by, and that'll just get more and more true over time, yes? Matthew Kaufman
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
I agree with the way you are looking at it. I know it sounds impressive to talk about hosts, but in ipv6 all that matters is how many subnets do I have and how clean are my aggregation levels to avoid large wastes of subnets. Host addressing is not an issue or concern. So to talk about 128 bits instead of the reality of the 64 is silly. Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Sep 16, 2012, at 20:23 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: [ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ] We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best Practice deployment. while i am not totally convinced, i am certainly concerned. we are doing many of the same things all over again. remember when rip forced a homogenous, often classful, mask length in a network and we chewed through /24s? think /64 in ipv6, except it's half the bits not 1/4 of them. remember when we gave out As and Bs willy nilly? look at the giant swaths of v6 we give out today in the hopes that someone will deploy it. and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project that would connect universities, research institutions and some military installations. In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous. Our estimation of humongous didn't change, the usage of the network changed dramatically. The experiment escaped from the laboratory and took on a life of its own. Once that happened, the realization that 32 bits wasn't enough was very nearly immediate. The IPv6 address space offers 61 bits of network numbers each of which holds up to 64 bits worth of hosts. Obviously you never want to fill one of those subnets (nor could you with any available hardware), but it means that you don't have to waste time thinking about rightsizing network assignments. I won't say we will never run out of IPv6 address space, but I will say that I'll be surprised if IPv6 doesn't hit a different limit first. Guess what... If it turns out that our current behavior with respect to IPv6 addresses is ill-advised, then, we have 6+ more copies of the current IPv6 address space where we can try different allocation strategies. Rather than fretting about the perils of using the protocol as intended, let's deploy it, get a working end-to-end internet and see where we stand. Owen -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
* joe...@bogus.com (joel jaeggli) [Sun 16 Sep 2012, 18:42 CEST]: We tend to engineer for a maximum of around 50 associations per radio (not AP). beyond that performance really starts to suck which can be measured along a multitude of dimensions. The most visible one to the client(s) being latency due to loss and subsequent retransmission. Reduction in coverage is done on a couple of dimensions. that ap with the 3-5dBi gain dipoles probably shouldn't be 100mW. but the noise floor is in a different place when the room is full of clients so it can't be to low either. Dropping the low speed rates backward compatibility with 802.11b and setting the multicast rate to something higher will force clients in marginal coverage situations to roam more quickly, hog the air less and allow for higher throughput. This is all good advice that you should implement. The difficulty with high user density deployments is getting stations to associate to the nearest access point on the optimal band. When presented with the same SSID for 2.4 and 5 GHz, clients usually prefer te 2.4 GHz one because its S:N ratio usually seems better (inherent to the lower frequency). However, in practice this isn't always the case as there usually are many more clients on 2.4. Various vendors of lighweight access points use tricks to get clients to associate on the 5 GHz band: e.g. Cisco, I think, will reject an initial association request at 2.4 GHz in the hope that the client will retry at 5 GHz before retrying at 2.4, which will both be accepted. -- Niels.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:54 , Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
True, but at a price that means this won't occur on very many of earth's many CM and even if it did, when you subtract the space required for cooling them and the space required to produce the power to drive them (and the cooling plants) and the space required to produce the fuels for the power plants and... you still come up short. Indeed, as you make the hosts more dense, you may come up even shorter due to the overhead of supporting them. Owen On Sep 17, 2012, at 14:04 , Blake Pfankuch bl...@pfankuch.me wrote: VMware vSphere on quad processor 1u servers with 768gb of RAM :) that should yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density. -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 16:41 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... They don't. Instead, they suffer from it. I find it quite useful, actually. I would not say I suffer from it at all. Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) That is one of a major design flaw of IPv6 as a result of failed attempt to have SLAAC, which resulted in so stateful and time wasting mechanism. As it is virtually impossible to remember IPv6 addresses, IPv6 operation is a lot harder than necessary. Masataka Ohta Hmmm... I find SLAAC quite useful so I'm not sure why you would call it time-wasting. I also have no more difficulty remembering IPv6 addresses in general than I had with IPv4. I can generally remember the prefixes I care about and the suffixes unless machine-generated are almost always easier to remember in IPv6 because there are enough bits to make them usefully meaningful instead of dense-packed meaningless numbers. YMMV. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. we assign them /64s
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Owen DeLong wrote: I also have no more difficulty remembering IPv6 addresses in general than I had with IPv4. I can generally remember You have already demonstrated your ability to remember things wrongly so many times in this ML, your statement is very convincing. the prefixes I care about and the suffixes unless machine-generated are almost always easier to remember in IPv6 because I'm afraid you forget to have stated: Hmmm... I find SLAAC quite useful YMMV. Your memory may vary. Masataka Ohta
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: ARP and DHCP usually work. For an unusual case of ARP for other STAs, collisions do increase initial latencies, but as refreshes are attempted several times, there will be no latter latencies. OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large, which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost. Hi Masataka, Where do things go wrong? As I understand it from your description, we're mostly talking about data between a wifi station and remote servers somewhere off the wired side of the network. Wifi station to station communications comprises a relatively minor portion of wifi's use so we don't burn a lot of worry on them in the general analysis. In the wifi to remote wired case, all IPv4 traveling the wifi network is subject to layer-2 error recovery except for the ARP packet from the default gateway to the station, requesting the station's MAC address. This works out OK because the default gateway is somewhat noisy about resending that arp request until it gets a response from the station and then it caches the response for a long time. In IPv6, the station sends an ICMPv6 router solicitation instead of an ARP for the default gateway. This is a multicast message but since it's from the station to the AP it's subject to layer 2 error recovery by the 802.11 protocol. The default gateway sends back a router advertisement (unicast since its responding to a solicitation) with prefix info, its MAC, its IP address, etc. Unicast = layer 2 error recovery. It then configures its address and sends packets to the default gateway. In the reverse direction, the gateway sends a neighbor solicitation via multicast looking for the MAC association with the station's IP. Like the ARP broadcast this is not subject to layer-2 error recovery. When the station eventually receives one of the repeated solicitations, it responds with a neighbor advertisement to the default gateway (station to AP, error recovered) which the default gateway caches for a while. In terms of the number and nature of packets sent without wifi's layer 2 error recovery, they look the same, at least in theory. What did I miss? Where does IPv6 take the bad turn that IPv4 avoided? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/how-low-power-can-you-go.html On 9/17/12 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: True, but at a price that means this won't occur on very many of earth's many CM and even if it did, when you subtract the space required for cooling them and the space required to produce the power to drive them (and the cooling plants) and the space required to produce the fuels for the power plants and... you still come up short. Indeed, as you make the hosts more dense, you may come up even shorter due to the overhead of supporting them. Owen On Sep 17, 2012, at 14:04 , Blake Pfankuch bl...@pfankuch.me wrote: VMware vSphere on quad processor 1u servers with 768gb of RAM :) that should yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density. -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
