RE: IPv6 for Websites

Agreed -

But lately many /8's have been given back even by big companies - but all should be given back now - if the military and govt is so intent on spending $1 Trillion in billable consulting rates to get on To IPV6 then the Airforce and Army can give back all those Juicy /8's they have to us poor bastards in private industry that cant afford $560 an hour to Lockheed Martin IT consulting to have them come in and make all our web systems IPv6 :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Marko Milivojevic [mailto:markom_at_ipexpert.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Brian McGahan
Cc: Aaron; Ryan West; Joseph L. Brunner; Cisco Fanatic; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: IPv6 for Websites

The real problem is that RIRs (ARIN, RIPE NCC, AfriNIC, APNIC, LACNIC) never implemented reclamation policies. In fact, they were so focused on pushing IPv6 for the longest time, they never even attempted to reclaim unused space. For example when DIGITAL-Compaq-HP conglomerate was formed, was it really necessary to keep all 3 /8s? There are way too many nowadays tiny companies that have /8 and multiple /16 assignments they will never ever end up using.

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan_at_ine.com> wrote:
> Obviously IPv6 solves the address shortage problem, because the space is much larger.  What I'm saying though is that making the address space larger just makes the problem worse, not better.  Also the real situation with IPv4 address shortage isn't really what most people think.
>
> Look at the stats on the current BGP table: http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/v6rpt.html  Only 60% of the IPv4 space is being advertised into the BGP table.  This means that 40% isn't in use.  The real question we should be asking is who owns this 40% of the space that isn't even being advertised?  If IANA wanted to it could tell these organizations to justify their assignments and advertise the space or the blocks are getting reclaimed.  Also if the shortage is such a real problem *right now* why aren't we allocating 240.0.0.0/4?  There's no reason the IPv4 stack couldn't be updated to say these are valid unicast addresses.  I'm really interested to see how it's going to play out long-term.
>
>
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security) bmcgahan_at_INE.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron [mailto:aaron1_at_gvtc.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 9:11 AM
> To: Brian McGahan; 'Ryan West'; 'Joseph L. Brunner'
> Cc: 'Cisco Fanatic'; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: IPv6 for Websites
>
> Does ipv6 help in the case where an isp has a /17 (32k addresses) and 
> an ever-increasing customer/subscriber base wanting a real-world 
> routable address?  Will ipv6 solve that problem where I will continue 
> to have to issue out a publicly routable address to my customers and I 
> only have an arin-assigned /17 but I need more and more addresses all 
> the time?  Today and in the foreseeable future, can I still get more 
> arin-assigned ipv4 prefixes if I request them and justify this with 
> the aforementioned increasing subscriber base?  Will arin give me more 
> v4 space?  Lemme know.... thanks
>
> Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf 
> Of Brian McGahan
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:33 PM
> To: Ryan West; Joseph L. Brunner
> Cc: Cisco Fanatic; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: IPv6 for Websites
>
> What's interesting though is that IPv6 actually makes the problem worse, not better.  The goal of IPv6 was to solve IPv4's address shortage and enforce heirarchy, but realistically heirarchy cannot be enforced.  At this point the Internet is too highly and randomly interconnected for IPv6 to solve any real problem.
>
> The growth of the IPv4 BGP table is an indicator of why IPv6 won't 
> solve the
> problem: http://bgp.potaroo.net/  Currently the IPv4 table is at over
> 450,000 prefixes and growing, which is over 100% growth over the past 
> 4 years.  If you check the comparitive tables of IPv4 vs IPv6
> (http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/v6rpt.html) right now ~60% of the IPv4 
> space is being advertised (~450,000 prefixes) and at ~10,000 prefixes 
> IPv6 advertising ~.02% of its space.  What will happen when every end 
> device actually enables IPv6 and needs to be globally routable?  Not 
> only will you
> *still* need to route the 500,000+ (conservatively) IPv4 prefixes at that time, but also the thousands or potentially millions of IPv6 prefixes in the table.
>
> I really hate to say this, but I think I have to agree with Joe on 
> this one
> ;)  IPv6 was defined in 1998 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460).  That's almost 14 years it's been available and it has not ever been seriously implemented.  I think long term IPv6 will be a pipe dream that never really took off and that some other protocol similar to LISP will be implemented to solve larger scale routing and mobility issues.
>
> Just don't email me a link to this post in 10 years when 99% of the 
> Internet is running IPv6 and I was 100% wrong ;)
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security) bmcgahan_at_INE.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf 
> Of Ryan West
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:55 AM
> To: Joseph L. Brunner
> Cc: Cisco Fanatic; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: IPv6 for Websites
>
> We might be, but a full BGP feed will take 8gb of RAM.  Can't wait to see all those /26's in my table.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:46 AM, "Joseph L. Brunner" 
> <joe_at_affirmedsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Your carrier needs to route IPv6 for you...
>>
>> Here's a hint: IPv6 was created to boost IT companies bottom line...
>> its
> not needed, never was needed, never will be needed...
>>
>> 99% of companies (or more) use nat... entire clusters of home 
>> internet
> users can also use nat.
>>
>> The "Global IP Shortage" is a solution looking for a problem...
>>
>> Bet you $10 in 2020 we're all still using IPv4
>>
>> :)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf 
>> Of Cisco Fanatic
>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:29 AM
>> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: IPv6 for Websites
>>
>> All -
>>
>> As IPv6 will be the future of Internet and I think I know much about
>> IPv6
> as I am studying for my CCIE.
>>
>> I have a quick question and finding it very difficult to implement.
>>
>> My company is hosting 2 sites for a small company. This company 
>> approached
> and said that they want there sites to be IPv6 ready. We enabled IPv6 protocol on the switches and Checkpoint firewall but it still does not work.
>>
>> Am I missing something or it is not that easy as I am thinking?
>>
>> Any help will be appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yuri
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ _ Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ _ Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net