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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) [mailto:hannu.flinck@nsn.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:30 AM
>To: Routing Research Group
>Subject: RE: [RRG] 2 billion IP cellphones in 2103 & mass 
>adoption of IPv6 by currentIPv4 users
>
>
>Well, I think that the IPv6 enabled terminals/sites would like to be
>reachable natively through IP6. So it looks like there will be a lot of
>multihoming needs as both IPv6 and IPv4 will co-exist.

Simply call it "IPv6 enabled terminals reachable through
IPv6", then I am fine with it. "Native" may mean different
things to different people, and what does the terminal
care as long as it can send/receive IPv6 packets?

>And those sites/terminals that start to use IPv6 in parallel with IPv4
>need to go through "renumbering" process; adding the IPv6 
>addresses into
>the connectivity system (DCHP, DNS, FW, ACL). This renumbering 
>should be
>acceptable.

I haven't followed the renumbering discussions all that
closely, but do you consider the assignment of IPv6
addresses/prefixes where there were none previously as
a "renumbering event"?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
    
>
>- Hannu
>
>---------
> >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.
>
>
>--
>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