[changed subject to something more related ;) ]
Brian Candler wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 03:17:14PM +, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And if you need to change ISP, and
therefore get a new address allocation, many people would rather just put
in
some NAT at the border than take the pain of network renumbering (which
IPv6
doesn't make any easier than IPv4)
Depends on the size of your network of course. But you can actually get
IPv6 PI space already, you will have to cash out a bit for it, just like
for IPv4 address space, but it is there. Problem for that solved. Same
non-scaling solution as in IPv4. No differences there.
And otherwise read RFC4193 to get your unique local goo for free.
I'll freely admit I've not been following every micro-level change to IPv6
over the last couple of years, nor every RIR policy. I wrote my notes in
2004, a year before RFC4193 came out.
That Internet thing is a changing place, things that are broken get fixed ;)
[..]
Now, there is a proposal for modifying this policy to allow PI allocations:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html
but as far as I can tell this is still just a proposal.
Then shout and scream in the RIPE forums and support the policy. That is
the only way that it will be accepted: when the majority wants it.
[..]
That is, the IPv6 tail still tries to wag the commercial dog.
The Internet has been commercial for ages already, thus of course it
will follow the people with the big money. But as with any kind of
politics, and this is just that, the one with the biggest mouth +
biggest amount of cash wins.
Of course if you have better ideas, you can always bring it up on the
various RIR forums.
I'm afraid my better idea is to abandon IPv6 as still-born, and stick
with
IPv4 until we have a new protocol which addresses more of the problems of
the Internet today.
Which is a bad plan. Although the routing issues are not solved (yet).
The addressing issue is solved with IPv6. Getting a deployed base of
enduser systems that supports IPv6 is a very important factor. Otherwise
you will finally have this great routing system, but nothing will
actually be able to use it yet and thus you still have to wait for the
endusers to upgrade; which will take ages. Deploying IPv6 now is a good
thing.
The core of the network will take care of the routing and any other
tricks that will be needed to route the 128bit address space.
Routing is the problem, not the addressing anymore.
If IPv6 had stuck
with DHCP, which everyone knows and understands, then you could just give
each customer a /96, rather than a /48 as demanded by IPv6, and we would
have addresses for aeons. Not so now.
There is *NO* demand from anyone for giving /48's to customers. It is
only a suggestion.
Talking again about RIPE policy, section 5.4.1 requires /48, or larger for
very large subscribers. Exceptions are made to allow /64 when it is known
that one and only one subnet is needed by design, and /128 when it is
absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting
As I said it is only a suggestion. When a LIR gives out /56's they can
do this. No RIPE police will be knocking on their doors.
Also there are proposals to start using /56's. The counter argument
against them though is that there are so extremely many /48's and so
extremely many /32's to get them from that the point of using /56's is a
little bit moot.
/48's are very handy in use, as the first 4 numbers are 'theirs', the
rest is yours.
BTW: calculate how many /48's are in 2000::/3 and you'll get an idea.
Note that when 2000::/3 is full there are 7 other 'tries' left to get it
right.
But the implication of this policy is that it is not feasible for a
customer
to have one /64 and slice it up into 2^32 /96's (for instance), because
otherwise you could just give all customers a /64. That contradicts what
you
wrote.
If that customer requires multiple /64's they should get a /48 at the
moment. Note my use of SHOULD which is not a MUST.
I suggest you start doing some background reading, read a good book or
something as you clearly are missing a LOT of information, as I've
easily shown by the answering the FUD you where trying to spread above.
Well, I don't know what the opposite of FUD is called, but IPv6
afficianados have been trying to spread it for many many years :-)
Some people like marketing and filling their pockets with government and
consulting tricks, can you blame them? ;)
Therefore many of the points you make are essentially agreeing with me:
IPv4
and IPv6 are the same in many cases.
Correctemundo. Except for the larger address space they are mostly the same.
3. THE MULTI-HOMING PROBLEM
See 1) Same problem in effect.
Btw, phone numbers are analogous to DNS, not to IP addresses.
Yes. So in a *real* solution to the problems of IPv4, maybe you make IP
addresses look more like DNS names.
Random thought: consider something like IP header stuffing. Each
