[afripv6-discuss] What are the benefits of IPv6 over IPv4

Frank Habicht geier at geier.ne.tz
Sun Jun 3 19:29:40 SAST 2012


I understand Vint Cerf is accepting part of the blame [about limitations 
of v4].
I believe that it's good (for innovation) to be able to have direct 
communication between end devices (end-to-end principle).
That is gone for IPv4 (NAT), and workarounds [1] are there (none perfect).

I think IPv6 will take care of it for longer that IPv4 did.

I hope we have a common understanding about history and we can go 
forward. How do we deploy more v6 ?

I like Gert Doering's .sig :
"have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?"


PS: didn't get 2x eBGP up with Cisco 891 [2] today :
clear bgp ipv6 unicast * did _not_ help
reload _did_ help.     strange....
Cisco IOS Software, C890 Software (C890-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 
15.1(4)M1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

- the one I think about are STUN etc
- ipv6 over facebook, over google, don't count
- 6to4 should be history, and not in discussions about the future - can 
we agree?

end-user customer, with 2 uplinks to same ISP, in AS 64512
yes, i was talking about BGP over v6 and about v6

On 6/3/2012 7:52 PM, Kondwani C. Hara wrote:
> I believe by design, ipv4 was never supposed to exhaust. But as a
> marketing extra, even ipv6 address space will prove too little. Not
> every individual requires a public ip. But if every device will require
> a public ip, then per individual it should be expected several devices.
> I wonder how many ipv6 ip address are implementable? If there is an
> upper bound, the seemingly huge number will exhaust.
> Unless we come back to the original design of ipv4 we will find that we
> would still encounter the same problem. We will also find that ipv4 was
> never supposed to exhaust in the first place.
> On 3 Jun 2012 14:09, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka at seacom.mu
> <mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu>> wrote:
>     On Sunday, June 03, 2012 11:11:39 AM Mark Elkins wrote:
>      > At the end of the day - every ISP type service charges
>      > for the IP addresses that they 'rent' from their
>      > Upstream or RIR. They are all businesses.
>     Mark, do you mean as a hidden cost or explicitly?
>     Not all ISP's charge their customers for space. But yes,
>     some do.
>     The operations I've run assign a minimum default for every
>     new turn-up. If customers want additional space for their
>     expansion, they only need to justify that to us (not as easy
>     as I'm making it sound), and if they could, we'd assign more
>     to them. Justification for additional space was always in
>     line with the policies enforced by the RIR in the respective
>     region I worked; which is fair.
>     Charging for IPv4 address space isn't terribly useful, as
>     that's a dying resource you can't base any sustainable model
>     on.
>     I know Product & Marketing folks like to charge for IPv4
>     addresses as a deterrence to exhaustion, but I always tell
>     them that if a customer is desperate, they'll pay anything
>     to get it.
>     Add to that, the Sales are happy making IPv4 addresses an
>     item line because they make more on commissions.
>     So the combination of S&M, in this case, is a recipe for
>     disaster that needs checking.
>     But as a basic means of revenue when offering a service,
>     I'll submit it (selling IPv4 space) leaves a foul taste in
>     my mouth. As for IPv6, that's just immoral, but that's my
>     own opinion.
>     Your network, your rules.
>     Mark.
>     _______________________________________________
>     afripv6-discuss mailing list
>     afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net>
>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> afripv6-discuss mailing list
> afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

More information about the afripv6-discuss mailing list