[mdlug] OT: the great IPv6 debate

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 17:12 -0400, Jay Nugent wrote:
>  Exactly, IPv6 is NOT an extension - was never meant to be.  V6 does a
> lot more than just provide addresses.  IPv6 is not just about more
> addresses, V6 has automatic neighbor discovery, some automatic
> configuration facilities, and various security features all built into it.

Not to mention: better performance.  Simple headers, no fragmentation,
no per-hop checksum, much larger MTUs, and ***much*** smaller routing
tables provide an enormous load reduction for routers.  [The IPv4
routing table is horribly bloated by things like class E subnets].
Comparing the amount of work a router has do to process an IPv4 packet
vs. an IPv6 packet is rather astounding;  and given the power of modern
routers [thanks in part to IPv4's bad design] the thought of them
shoveling mostly IPv6 packets is rather exciting.

> But it's agreed that the work would better be spent
> to migrate to IPv6 instead, rather than re-number then a few years later
> have to migrate to V6 anyway.  Might as well just do it once.

+1
 
>   2) If every IPv6 address were an M&M, they would fill Lake Erie SEVEN
> times over and still have a lot left over.  IPv4 barely half fills Lake
> St.Clair.  IPv4 is only 32 bits long while IPv6 is 128 bits.  This is a
> HUGE increase in size alone.

Maximum address utilization is estimated at about 80% (called the HD
ratio).  So given IPv4 in a perfect world [hah!] that is about 50
million hosts;  for IPv6 using the same ratio gives you 5.07*10^30
hosts.  Or roughly 1,000 hosts for every gram of mass in planet Earth
[or 20,108,758,371,078 addresses per pound-of-planet].  That's a *big*
&@^*&$ network.   Or as it was explained to me: a network
79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 *TIMES* the size of the current
Internet.   

So lets just do that - and forget about all this subnetting madness.
Let's just build an efficient, scalable, and *simpler* Internet.  Some
people/organizations won't move to IPv6 - that is what the ash bin is
for.

> As far as NAT goes, IPv6 was *NOT* designed to support NAT as there was
> no need.  

Thank goodness!

> You either run a clean box or you don't in V6.  Hiding behind
> NAT with some false sense of security has proven bad bad bad.  When ISP's
> can hand me a /48 without blinking - I have far enough IP addresses to
> assign to every single belonging in my house let alone every PC, printer,
> phone, and toaster!!  

Every mite living in your carpet can have its own address!