Le 22 août 2011 à 19:41, Cameron Byrne a écrit :

> 2011/8/22 Nejc Škoberne <[email protected]>:
>> Dear Cameron,
>> 
>>> some pressure.  IMHO, i believe that static over-subscription ratios
>>> required by A+P will not meaningfully keep pace with the rapid growth
>>> in the number of internet nodes.
>> 
>> I would be very happy if you elaborated on this. Can you give something
>> to support this belief?
>> 
> 
> Easy math version assuming the entire internet moves to this model of
> stateless address sharing:
> 
> 50 Billion Internet nodes [1]
> 
> 240 Million  IPv4 addresses [2]
> 
> 208.3 devices per IPv4 address -- by dividing the above numbers
> 
> 312.5 ports per user -- by dividing by 65k ports

312 ports per host "for IPv4", while more and more sites are accessible in IPv6 
and consume no IPv4 port, is in my understanding a comfortable perspective.

Regards,
RD

> 
> Not a perfect guesstimate on several levels since the "internet" is
> not uniform and does move to anything in a uniform, the numbers used
> above are suspect, and this is not an internet wide solution, some
> nodes may go IPv6 only, and so on ... but sometimes looking at numbers
> like this in the macroscopic view helps us understand our little part
> of the internet that we are trying to design a solution for.
> 
> As stated, some providers may find a benefit here... I believe that is
> clear.  My understanding is that in North America many of the
> incumbent land line providers have fairly static subscriber bases, not
> a lot of growth in users demanding IPv4.  In my world (mobile), AFAIK
> approximately half of the service providers globally already do NAT44
> / LSN / CGN.
> 
> Areas of the internet that are experiencing or anticipate rapid growth
> (mobile, cloud, new ventures) in address consumption will likely not
> extend their existing addresses far with a stateless solution.
> 
> Regards,
> Cameron
> 
> [1] http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/press/releases/2010/04/1403231
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3194
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nejc
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to