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

Kivuva Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Mon Jun 4 00:08:20 SAST 2012

Kondwani, you are right. What about issuing a /8 class A IPv4 for
private addresses, or issuing /8 for several legacy companies. That is
16.7million or 2^24 hosts per company. Such a waste.

The same lack of foresight is seen in allocation of IPv6 by giving
small entities /48 (that is more than all addressable numbers in v4)
although that leaves us with 281 trillion /48.

Mark Elkins! Can someone enlighten me why a home may need a /60? Still
I don't see how we will exhaust v6 in our lifetime even after.

On 03/06/2012, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> Hi,
> 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...?"
> Frank
> 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)
> [1]
> - 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?
> [2]
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> afripv6-discuss mailing list
> afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss

Mwendwa Kivuva
Business Development
Transworld Computer Channels
Cel: 0722402248
transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing
kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

More information about the afripv6-discuss mailing list