From: Octavio Medina (octavio.medina_at_no.spam)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 08:54:57 PST
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> I've yet to hear of an organization (except for a very few examples) which
> would have to give back IPv4 addresses if it starts using IPv6!
You cannot focus in today's situation. You have to consider that the
number of computers you have will continue to grow and there will be a
day where you will no longer be able to ask for more v4 space. That will
be a problem, if want to maintain e2e connectivity.
>
> > I believe DSTM ports is a better choice
> > for that.
>
> Sure, it _sounds_ an interesting idea.
>
> But I don't think it's going to _work_ in a robust, reliable way except
> under some very specific scenarios.
>
> Therefore I think ports option can be very bad: I wouldn' want to define
> even an optional _IPv6_ mechanism that may be unreliable, etc.
>
Of course more work needs to be done in order to show how "very
specific" the scenarios for DSTM ports really are. Remember that DSTM is
to be used ONLY when no other means of communication is possible. We
have done some studies that show that most IPv4 sessions in our domain
are http. In that case, you don't even need DSTM. Putting an ALG (an
IPv4/IPv6 web proxy) is enough. This considerably reduces the need of
IPv4 addresses, reducing the size of the address pool. DSTM ports is to
be used only in extreme cases, when even the use of ALGs and the Dynamic
temporary address allocation in standard DSTM can not satisfy th demand
of IPv4 addresses.
-Octavio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:31 PDT