[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] IPv6 immediate benefits to some end-users?
>From: Robin Whittle [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:31 PM
>To: Routing Research Group
>Subject: [RRG] IPv6 immediate benefits to some end-users?
>In an off-list message, Fred Templin suggested something which
>should have been obvious to me and which prompted this train of
>thought - about a way IPv6 could be of immediate benefit to
>end-users in a way that IPv4 can't:
>Home and SOHO end-users typically have their PCs etc. behind NAT and
>can only accept incoming communications directly, or run a server,
>by messing with the NAT in their modems and doing other tricky
>things. Then, they would still need a dynamic DNS arrangement,
>since their IP address is unstable.
If their IPv4 NAT also becomes an IPv6 router that gets a
proper IPv6 prefix delegation and can sub-delegate to nodes
inside the NATed domain, then it doesn't matter if the IPv4
addresses inside the NATed domain are unstable.
>If they had a native IPv6 service over the same DSL, cable modem or
>fibre link - and a suitable new modem - and if they were given a
>stable IPv6 prefix that wouldn't change from one month or year to
>the next, then they could run their own web servers, game servers
>etc. I know nothing about games and care less, but have been told
>that some of them can use IPv6.
>Likewise, some people are keen to run massive P2P file sharing apps,
>including streaming P2P file sharing with packets coming from
>multiple peers. I guess supernodes for those systems are best on
>public addresses, rather than behind NAT.
>A problem with this is the limited upstream capacity of DSL and
>DOCSIS cable modem services. Likewise the extra admin and hardware
>costs for IPv6 routing, IPv6 traffic counting and billing, IPv6
>upstream links etc. The service would have to cost more to pay for
>the cost of getting a real, stable, native IPv6 address and the
>separate stream of native IPv6 packets.
>Perhaps some of these benefits could come via Teredo or 6to4,
>probably with the modem doing the work rather than some PC behind
>the IPv4 NAT system. However, 6to4 and I think Teredo IPv6
>addresses depend on the public IPv4 address of the modem.
You are forgetting about ISATAP. That, plus site border routers
that get stable IPv6 prefixes gives you the ability to use IPv6
addresses w/o embedded IPv4 addresses (unless the stable IPv6
prefix is being served by 6to4).
>This semi-permanent public IPv6 address is a direct benefit - for
>some end-users - which can't be done with IPv4. They could have
>their own outpost on the frontier of the Net.
>But this has been true for years. If it is attractive, then where
>is the evidence that end-users, beyond those with IETF technical
>interests, are actually keen to pay for a real IPv6 service?
>If there are attractions to at least some ordinary end-users, then
>is this happening with free IPv6 tunneled services?
>It can't be too hard to get Windows Teredo going, or use a tunnel
>broker service. Within 10 minutes of looking at:
>I had an account and downloaded, compiled and installed the source
>code "Gateway6 5.1 Source Code (Linux/Unix/Darwin/BSD) from:
>on my CentOS 5.1 machine which directly handles the fixed IP address
>of my DSL service. It went smoothly and I got a semi-permanent /56 .
>Firefox on that machine could access http://ipv6.google.com .
If you have IPv6 routers attached to your private IPv4 network,
ISATAP is much more flexible and efficient than tunnel broker.
(If you don't, Teredo should take care of things automatically.)
> - Robin
>to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
>word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg