NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Predicting a black market in IPv4 addresses
|
Of course we did run out of addresses many years ago but
thanks to NATs we’ve kept things patched together. The bug is not the NAT but in making the IP address so
important. It is just a circuit identifier for the path between two machines.
We shouldn’t be using it as the application-relationship identifier as we
do now with port numbers acting as a hack for simulating application
relationships. Want to connect to the SMTP server on a given machine, then use
IP:25. Want to connect to a different server … oops. But those IP relationships are not stable and V6 doesn’t
address that issue. Skype shows a far better approach with stable application
identifiers though the centralized address database is far from ideal –
at least it’s not inside the network. Instead of spending more than a decade on V6 we should’ve
been putting more effort into an approach of providing stable relationships between
the end points themselves rather than adding more bits to the circuit number. -----Original Message----- Whether the market is white or black, let's guess that
the retail price of an IPv4 address will increase from $1/month to roughly
$10/month. That isn't a lot of money, considering that you can run a
fairly large service on one address using load balancers. > " ... predict that many
new servers will be IPv6-exclusive, gradually >
isolating IPv4-only Internet users." I predict that this will *not* happen. All public-facing
services will have IPv4; it's the "clients" who will be on
IPv6 + DS-Lite. It's not that bad of a scenario, since mostly everything will
mostly work. (Broadband providers swear that they wouldn't take IPv4
addresses away from residential customers and sell those addresses to
hosting customers, but I'll believe that when I don't see it.) Wes Felter |