[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Whittle [mailto:rw@firstpr.com.au] 
>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:49 PM
>To: Routing Research Group; Steven Blake
>Subject: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass adoption 
>of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>In "Re: [RRG] Re: Practical Proposals vs. endless theoretical
>discussions", you wrote:
>
>> In five years there will be > 2 billion new cell phones with IP
>> stacks.  How do you propose to provide global connectivity to
>> these?
>
>I usually mention that cellphones and perhaps some captive users
>with no alternatives in China are likely to use IPv6 in large
>numbers.   For brevity, I didn't mention it in the message you quote.
>
>Since the cellphone has its own inbuilt applications and typically
>local sources of stuff the mobile carrier is trying to sell to the
>customer, there is no major barrier to using IPv6.
>
>I suspect that many carriers will want to give their customers a
>public IP address, IPv4 or IPv6.  If they do that, the end-user can
>run their own VoIP software and bypass the carrier's voice system.
>The end-user might also be more able to purchase services, video
>etc. (AKA "content") from other companies than the carrier or its
>affiliates.
>
>I don't have any direct knowledge of IPv6 in China - its just
>something I heard of, which sounds likely.  I guess those people
>would not have a choice of an IPv4 service, because there is only
>one ISP in their area.
>
>All these are new users.
>
>For the next 5 or 10 or whatever years, I doubt that there will be
>an IPv6 routing scaling problem.  I think that the predicted masses
>of cellphone customers and likewise lots of users behind some
>massive ISPs in China will be connected via large ISPs, I guess with
>a small number of BGP advertised prefixes.
>
>I think that there would only be unsustainable growth in the number
>of IPv6 BGP routes if there was a widespread general uptake of IPv6
>by end users - including those who want to sell things to the
>legions of predicted mobile users.  A routing scaling problem for
>IPv6 would emerge if there was a few hundred thousand of these
>organisations who decided they need to be on IPv6, and that they
>want multihomed and/or portable space so badly that they get their
>own PI space.  Maybe this will happen.

Who says there needs to be growth in the number of IPv6
BGP routes? If we map/encaps the entire IPv6 space as an
overlay over the existing IPv4 Internet, we keep IPv6
prefixes out of the BGP routing tables and we get to
scale through mapping w/o affecting routing scaling.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

>There is only one routing scaling problem at present - IPv4.  The
>only way IPv6 will help with that is if enough ordinary end-users
>like present-day end-users, with desktop PCs, applications, servers,
>server farms, hosting companies, office networks etc. decide that
>they want to pay for a service which is IPv6-only, and at the most
>share a single IPv4 address via something like Dual Stack Lite.
>
>It is really hard for me to imagine this happening - search for
>"lite" at: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/maillist.html.
>
>Other folks have no trouble imagining this sort of thing.  But they
>have been imagining this for over a decade, and it hasn't happened
>yet.
>
>They tend to think of the IPv4 sky falling in ca. 2011 when the
>fresh blocks of unused address space are snapped up, but I think
>this will be the start of a long period of using the space more
>intensively.  I think there is a lot of scope for doing this, and
>that for a very long time it will be cheaper and better to keep
>looking after customers with connectivity to the Internet they want
>and need: IPv4, rather than trying to sell them a service to some
>other Internet which only connects to a fraction of users.
>
>I am not saying that there won't be a significant number of captive
>home/office customers and cell-phone users on IPv6 in by 2018 or
>perhaps 2013 - they may well be quite a few.  I am not saying that
>IPv4 will go forever, or that IPv4 NAT is a good thing.  I am not
>yet convinced by the various arguments for why large numbers of
>current end-users and their like will adopt IPv6-only services
>inside 10 years.
>
> -  Robin
>
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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
>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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