IP4 Space - the lie

[dwhite at olp.net (Dan White)]

On 05/03/10?12:39?+0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
>> trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
>> toward dual-stack ;)
>> 
>> Nice.
>> 
>> Steve
>
>
>	er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
>	dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.

I would expect the number of v6 addresses assigned to a host to be a
multiple of the number of v4 addresses, depending on the type of host.

>	if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
>	either you are going to need:
>
>	lots more IPv4 space
>
>	stealing ports to mux addresses
>
>	run straight-up native IPv6 - no IPv4 (unless you need to talk to 
>	a v4-only host - then use IVI or similar..)
>
>	imho - the path through the woods is an IVI-like solution.

Or, dual stack today. When you've run out of IPv4 addresses for new end
users, set them up an IPv6 HTTP proxy, SMTP relay and DNS resolver and/or
charge a premium for IPv4 addresses when you start to sweat.

-- 
Dan White