At 1/13/2011 11:59 AM, you wrote: > >>I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's, > >>NSLM5's, NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to > >>fair if/when our upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to > >>hear someone else is already doing it. > >> > >>Our "upstream" apparently is Hughesnet being resold in South > >>America. I'm not sure if their system/our modem is IPv6 > >>capable/ready. That may keep us on IPv4 and tunneled/nat'ed to IPv6 > >>for some time. > > > > Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is > > printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really. > >I am very concerned being that only 2 percent of the IPv4 pool remains. > >http://ipv6.he.net/statistics/ > >In a few months we may not be able to get more IPv4 space. What then? > NAT everyone? Ugh, with thousands of custommers thats an ugly >proposition. How do you track down abuse, subpoena issues and so many >other things...
That's Y2K redux, a fear campaign. HE in particular is trying to use it as a differentiator. What is running out is virgin, never-before-assigned IPv4 space. It is like the land offices in the homestead era. Eventually they ran out of land. Yet farming continued. IPv4 addresses were initially handed out very inefficiently. There are many owners of blocks that are larger than needed. If you are qualified for a block, you are qualified to buy a block from someone who already has one. A market will happen, and I don't think it will be very expensive. Nor am I too concerned about NAT. NAT only breaks broken applications. Public servers need public addresses, but the mass market user doesn't. (Inability to handle subpoenas may be seen as an advantage...) Check out the Pouzin Society for an alternative. I've got some more on this on my web site. > > If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only > > accessible via IPv6, they can tunnel out. But since there is no > > compatibility, the "transition" plan requires dual stack. So > > everything runs v4 until everybody is on v6. But since there's > > always more on v4 (everybody) than on v6 (those who have added the > > dual stack), there's no incentive for users to move to v4. The only > > benefit is to some ISPs, not to users. So users have little reason > > to move. (Sometimes users are smarter than some ISPs.) Plus v6 is > > an abomination, a misdesign of immense proportions, so you shouldn't > > buy into Cisco's fantasies. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
