|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
On 9-nov-04, at 17:27, Leo Bicknell wrote: My comment here was directed at the unregistered variant. You'll notice the math in the paper assumes each company coming to the table has a single IPv6 unregistered prefix. Why would a company need 1000 /48s, when a single /48 allows for 65536 subnets?My statement is that math does not reflect reality. Consider when Cisco wants to do a interconnect with AOL Time Warner, which due to the way they grow both bring 1,000 prefixes to the table. The chance of collision is actually quite high. Ok, let's assume there are already 2k networks connected. So a new one would have a one in 2^(40-9) chance of colliding. Do this 2k times and you're at one in 2^22. (Actually less because I'm overlooking the chance of successive collisions.)I believe even with that relatively small number of networks (2000 total) the probability of collision is well more than 50%. But if birthdays are only celebrated once every 3 million millennia (2^40 days) the number goes down again ever so slightly. :-)This is very similar to the birthday problem. http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.birthdayprob.html It only takes 23 people (6% of the 365 available birthdays) to generate a 50% chance of collision, with them only bringing one birthday to the table. Bring 20 "birthdays" to the table for each one and that number drops by orders of magnitude. And unlike IPv4, it's easy to give all hosts more than one address and renumbering the hosts themselves is fairly straightforward. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as I firmly believe very few people are going to use DHCP in IPv6.Another incorrect assumption. First, I want to dispel the notion right now that anyone is going to use IPv6 autoconfiguration. That's another head in the sand idea. We have two groups here. People who run "fixed infrastructure", which include network operators and server operators, and the second group is "end user workstations". The first group has always, and will always statically assign addresses.That's why your favorite C (and presumably other) boxes have the MAC addresses burned in the chassis rather than the NIC. They enter IP's in DNS and other systems where having them be static is key. Yes, renumbering the DNS still sux. :-) The second group could use autoconfiguration, except it provides none Not so much. Autoconfiguration and some DNS resolvers is all I need. There is still a big difference: you get to use the old and new addresses side by side for a while.So, for both groups to "renumber" it's no different than today. Renumbering is always bad, but there are degrees of badness. Fixed subnet masks, ample address space within subnets, multiple addresses all help, even if you discount autoconfiguration (which I don't) and all the filtering and DNS issues are of course the same.Best I can tell renumbering will be NO LESS expensive in IPv6, and actually will be more expensive, since the IPv6 proponents seem bent on requiring everyone to have 6 addresses to do anything useful, so it will be address management effort x6. With registered space you have the additional benefit that when packets Except the draft doesn't allow for that. I quote: The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the The draft does not make that information public. Well, someone should, if not the draft.
|