Slashdot Mirror
No Business Case For IPv6, Survey Finds
alphadogg writes "Business incentives are completely lacking today for upgrading to IPv6, the next generation Internet protocol, according to a survey of network operators conducted by the Internet Society (ISOC). In a new report, ISOC says that ISPs, enterprises and network equipment vendors report that there are 'no concrete business drivers for IPv6.' However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."
I'm beginning to find it hard to believe that IPv6 will ever be implemented. It seems to have been on the verge of it for close to a decade now.
I for one would not be surprised to see China and the likes implement IPv6.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
In a world without sharp objects, knives, or sidewalks, there would be no business case for bandaids. IPV6 is a solution to a problem that hasn't asserted itself. How often do you buy cough medicine when you haven't been sick in a while? This goes the same for ipv6. Until ISP's start charging more for ipv4 addresses due to scarcity, nobody is going to switch beyond digital survivalists and people who like to tinker with new technology.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
With the rate IPv4 adressess are running out it is only a matter of time before we will switch to ipv6. It might be 3 years from now or perhaps even more but when ipv4 becomes scarce(and it will), people and (internet)companies will try and make the switch to ipv6.
Don't get started about the turd that is called NAT, that's a problem posing as a solution.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
There will be once you run out of IPv4, as with most created problems they only get fixed after the suffering starts (climate change, fossil fuel supply and IPv4).
Everyone has understood for a long time it will cost money to setup IPv6 with zero gain today. Once the suffering starts that suffering will have a cost to a business and the decision markers (PHBs) can finally see IPv6 as a cost reduction and do something about it.
We donhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/21/2033211#'t have long now folks (recessions excluded) until that time. Just be patient and flame any crack pot technical measure to extend Network Address Translation it has its uses but not to fix the problem IPv6 can already fix much better. To all the technical people in the world the time to start singing the IPv6 mantra it NOW!
We can only hope that the transition to Internet 2 occurs in our lifetime, that will be a chance to revolutionize very many static technologies that are hard to remove from our lives.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
See: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/21/2053200
As this is a slow day I'm calling last post.
Last post at the bar gentlemen, please!
I'm seeing two copies of this story posted on the front page, both posted in the same minute. That has to be some kind of Slashdot record. Even normal user comments can't be duped by the same person less than two minutes apart....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Oh yes, finally. It has occurred! A story duped right next to each itself. Timothy FTW!
[Error 407: No signature found]
"This article went by... and then another one..."
"Was it the same article? Or a different one? THINK!"
As a developer and network security professional, I frankly can't wait until everything under the sun is addressable. I really do want my car to be able to talk to my electric razor.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I demand it because I'm tired of NAT. As I have more devices at home that I might want to access remotely, or that need full inbound and outbound access for full functionality (as jump-in, jump-out games often do), I get more and more tired of dealing with NAT.
And it's not just me. When I'm trying to help my dad with his machine, I can't connect to it remotely to access it.
Even my DirectTV satellite receiver uses IP access now, and due to NAT, they can't count on being able to contact your receiver from their end. So, any centralized service like remote booking has to take special measures to work.
IPv6 makes all this a lot easier, for example if you "request assistance" on Windows Vista/7, the first thing it does is create a Teredo tunnel so that your machine can be accessed remotely to diagnose and fix it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I don't mean customers should want IPv6. I mean that that's what should drive IPv6 deployment. Address depletion is a problem, but it's a problem that has workarounds, and to the extent that customers aren't bothered by the workarounds, there will be no IPv6 deployment.
The main impact of the workarounds is twofold. First, your outward-facing global IPv4 address will go away. Right now, your ISP has probably assigned you a real IPv4 address, not an RFC1918 address. So people can get packets to your gateway directly. That will go away.
The second impact is that we will have more and more layering of NATs. This will make peer-to-peer applications harder and harder. Also, as more users are piled up on single IP addresses, we will start to see port starvation. What this looks like is that iTunes will start acting funny - displaying some things, showing error messages for others. DNS lookups will fail, and you'll have to retry. Google maps tiles won't show up, so you'll see a partial map, and have to reload (possibly to see different tiles not show up).
So yeah, things will keep chugging along. But it will work less and less well as time goes on.
And I think that is what can, and should, be driving demand. If you don't want that, you might want to start fantasizing about how to get IPv6 into your own home. I have it in mine, it works a treat. I think it's too hard for the average person to do right now if their ISP doesn't support it, but that's a problem that we ought to try to solve if we want the internet to keep being a place where peer-to-peer is possible, and where innovation is possible.
Running out of address won't kill the internet. But it will suck the life out of it.
There wasn't a business case for the automobile when it first came out, either. Nor for the airplane. But how many businesses today could operate without the overnight delivery offered by air freight and delivery vans? Not many.
Except that there is a business case for IPv6, mentioned right in the summary. customer demand. If customers want it, there's your business case right there: if we don't offer it, our customers will leave us for competitors who do offer it. "If we don't do it we'll lose more customers than we can afford to." has to be one of the more compelling business cases out there.
If cell phones turn into real computers, which has probably already happened, then we will need IPv6 if all those phone users want to surf.
People ask what can IPv6 offer that NAT cannot. Try running multiple servers on multiple machines behind the same NAT, where one would like them to be accessible to the outside world via default port numbers. No amount of NAT configuration can get around this limitation, so saying NAT solves all the problems that IPv6 is supposed to answer is nothing more than self-delusional. Let's flip the question now.... what can NAT do that IPv6 cannot? Especially considering the fact that even *IF* for some reason that didn't involve how many IP's you actually have available, you still wanted to utilize NAT for some reason, you still could do that with ipv6... no problem at all. So what does NAT do that IPv6 can't? The only answer that might actually exist to this is that it arguably costs less to implement. So in reality, it's not that there's no business case of IPv6, it's really the case that these businesses are just cheap.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2009 will the Year of IPv6 to the Desktop.
With 64 bit addresses that people can still scribble on a scrap of paper.
There's more money to be made form an artificially scarce resource. That why we put our corporate benefactors in control of the Internet.
Will a big Business really want to have all of there 1000's of pc to each have there own public ip address?
Will people still us nat to get of having to pay for each IP? IPS like comcast will love to make you pay per pc like how then want to per tv with there digital cable outlet fees.
How stuff used on the Local network only that you works with ipv4?
Part of the problem at the moment is that because network companies are failing to provide IPv6 ready equipment, it is only the dedicated few that are moving to IPv6. Linksys, D-Link I am talking about guys like you. The there are the ISPs like Bell and Telus here in Canada who have to plans, or even anything beta.
Now look in Africa, Asia and Europe and you will see some serious movement in that direction.
Don't get me wrong, I have my computer enabled with Tiredo, providing me IPv6 access, but companies are going to want the easy route to IPv6 and until they are provided the support, or like my experience two days to immenent failure they aren't likey to do sod.
I have a Linksys WRT54G v8 and there isn't even the possibility of installing a version of DD-WRT that supports IPv6 :(
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I suspect the switch to IPv6 will take about as long as the switch from DC to AC electricity. IPv4 is so ingrained in hardware and software that it will take decades after the last IPv4 only hardware has been produced for the switch to occur. Additionally, the cost of IPv4 addresses is going to need to rise above the couple of dollars a year it currently is at. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/off-goes-the-power-current-started-by-thomas-edison/
Updated daily: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
Some day in the future when thousands of people call their ISP wondering why they cant get to their My Space and Face Book pages there will be a Business Case for IPv6.
DirectTV does not need IP access for remote booking that is done over the sat link and VOD works under NAT as well as DIRECTV2PC(TM) and MRV (still in beta test)
and the basic low cost data planes are nat'ed
Yes, I know. That's what I said it had to take special measures to work as opposed to saying it doesn't work.
There are inward-bound services that are precluded by the lack of incoming access. No, none of these are on the PVRs right now, because there is no such incoming access.
As an example, when you remote book, why don't you get any confirmation? Why does it just make you select "record if possible" (instead of priority record) and then you just go home and hope it recorded? Why can't it contact your box with the request, get a response saying "yes, it will record" or "this won't record, which conflict would you like to cancel?" The reason is because it cannot contact your box as there is no incoming access.
The current feature set is partially determined by what can be done under the current system. With IPv6, the feature set could be expanded.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Yes, they will want that. That is of course assuming they understand the disadvantages of each solution.
I don't think so. First of all I don't think nearly as much effort has been put into implementing NAT for IPv6 as has been for IPv4. Besides, internet providers are supposed to give each customer several segments of 2^64 addresses each. Even if they only give you one segment, that is still more addresses than you have computers.
Not all providers are like that. There may be providers that want to screw you over and make you pay extra per computer. That's a fuzzy measure anyway, why not per CPU or per monitor? If it happens, you will find, that there will be other companies that will try to get a competitive advantage by giving you all the addresses you need. The reason that will happen is, that it will not cost them anything to give you that. On IPv4 it did have a cost to the provider to give you another address, with IPv6 it will have a cost to the provider to find a way not to give it to you.
In the end what really costs something is bandwidth and reliability. The competition on bandwidth have driven prices for bandwidth so low, that providers may sacrifice on reliability, try to find other ways to charge you, and even in that case not give you all the bandwidth you payed for. For some providers restricting the number of IP addresses is just another way to make money and make you use less of the bandwidth.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
You get confirmation if it hooked up to your network / the internet. The incoming access is on the sat link as there are people with sat tv and only dial up internet with no cable or dsl at there place.
I tell this story all the time, and I'll tell it again.
I *tried* to build up a new fiber network in downtown St. Louis using IPv6. I couldn't get the address space!
It's insane - I could get 3x/24 blocks (non-sequential) assigned to my ASN, but in order to get an IPv6 allotment, I had to show proof that I *already* had utilized a full /24 of IPv6 addresses (which is NOT 256. It's 256*256*256!) They said to get it from my upstream provider - they said they don't do that, get it from ARIN. I go back to ARIN, ARIN says "They're full of it, get it from your upstream provider."
Even more insane? IPv6 allotments are FREE! I had to pay per year for an IPv4 allotment, but the free stuff? Pfft...we have it, we'll never run out of it within your lifetime, but you can't have it.
WTF?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
BS - if there wasn't a business case for migrating to IPv6, then they wouldn't do it. The case is obvious, demand by their customers. If they don't provide it, their customers will go elsewhere.
To quote myself from a post I made on another site:
According to IANA, of the 256 /8 IPv4 blocks, there are 31 Unallocated blocks and 16 Reserved for Future Use. Those 47 blocks means that approximately 18.36% of the IPv4 space is currently sitting empty. That's not even counting the the 16 /8 blocks reserved for Multicast, the 127/8 block reserved for a single IP (127.0.0.1), or counting any unallocated blocks in the CIDR networks.
Anyone who says we're running out of IPv4 addresses needs to go back and look at what is actually allocated and what isn't. Since nearly 20% of the IPv4 space is currently empty, I can't see how they can make the claim that we're running out of addresses with a straight face.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
SUPPLY and DEMAND:
Do you see your incentive?
Yes, you can have the very same server answer IPv6 queries as well as IPv4, you just need to add IPv6 interface to the server and make sure the particular server software knows how to bind to IPv6 address.
The particular ISOC survey document which started this thread has a fairly long list of resources at the end of it which might be helpful, but here's a few to get you started: http://www.6diss.org/, http://www.getipv6.info/ and http://www.ipv6tf.org/
The inevitability of The Singularity will bring about near instantaneous adoption of IPv6 as each sentient nanomachine will be uniquely addressable.
I have long felt that the way things have been planned, IPV6 implementation would never happen, at least not until a catastrophic shortage of IP addresses. Its just the same situation with fossil fuels, no one wants to do anything about it even though someone who does not have their head stuck in the sand can see that in 40 years we will be completely out of oil, but that is another subject. There is a chicken and egg problem with IPV6 addresses, very few clients use IPV6 so no business really needs to support it, but since no websites use IPV6, there is no incentive for users to use it. Instead of making the arrogant assumption that IPV6 conversion would happen universally and spotaneously, we should instead plan on a migration period when IPV4 and IPV6 networks must be able to communicate with each other. This can be done and I have worked out a way to do it.
An ISPs DNS and Routers will work in concert, utilising NAT. When an IPV4 network sends a DNS request to the ISP DNS server, the DNS server may sees it is for an IPV6 address. It contacts the router and reserves a private IPv4 address. The private ipv4 address is returned to the client by the DNS server as the IP address associated wirth the DNS query, the client then sends all packets to the router with that destination ipv4 address, the router translates it using a translation table to the real IPv6 address and sends it to the real ipv6 address. This way IPv4 hosts can contact IPv6 hosts. A tld should be reserved called .ipv6. This allows ipv4 clients to access ipv6 hosts by sending a DNS request to for a DNS address in the form .ipv6, which completes the above process using a private address locally for the ipv4 client. The private address space can be reused for each client, the router using the MAC address to differentiate between packets from different clients.
This is a minor nit - ARP cache timeouts are normally on the order of 300 seconds, not two minutes.
A less minor nit is this: IPv6 does not help decrease the size of routing tables as seen by major providers. Nor does IPv6 reduce the burden of sending routing updates so that routing updates are propagated faster than the underlying rate of change of usable net paths. (Enterprise subnets, whether IPv4 or IPv6, don't generally propagate into the routing announcements as seen by the big carriers.)
The compelling argument, for me at least, is that IPv6 is really a new internet that runs along side of the existing IPv4 net - there is no direct interoperability. This means that pretty much any new expansion of the net is going to require IPv4 connectivity, and IPv4 addresses, to reach the legacy net. And that makes IPv6 redundant from the user's point of view. That sort of drains the oil out of the IPv6 crankcase.
Of course the biggest argument of all is that IPv6 does not solve the hard issues of propagating routing information and finding usable paths across the net, particularly as the demands of human-conversational traffic and the political acts of nations are (unfortunately) driving routing to become increasingly aware of the types of traffic being routed.
I'm waiting to be shown that I'm wrong - I helped do the very first calculation of IPv4 address consumption back in the mid 1980's. And I was in the group at Sun back in the very early 1990's where IPv6 took form. I spent time at Cisco wrestling with questions like how to efficiently mechanize 128-bit longest-prefix matching on 32 and 64 bit hardware. And my company currently has IPv6 testing products. So I've been watching IPv6 for what will soon be two decades.
To me one of the tilt-points of IPv6 will be when I can go into Frys Electronics and find IPv6 capable print servers and other widgets of that ilk on the shelves.
I saw ISO/OSI come and go (I was rather a fan of TUBA - which included the use of ISO/OSI CLNP for the new IP layer - when the various IPv4 alternatives were being considered in the early 1990's.) It would not surprise me to see IPv6 go the way of ISO/OSI.
When it is rainin', you can't fix it nohow.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You know what fuck it, evidently someone has it out for me.
As soon as my karma gets to the point where I can post as I please, some fucking douchebag goes and started moderating everything I post down regardless of content.
Fuck you. Fuck your mother, I'm tired of this shit. I hope you get cancer in your fucking ball sack and it rots your cock off. Die you ignorant shit.
You can't take the sky from me.
From the point of view of most users the internet address is a URL/URI, not an IPv4 or IPv6 sequence of bits.
The fact that some protocols work poorly over NATs is based on architectural aspects that we've known are wrong for years - most particularly the carriage of lower layer addresses within higher layer protocols. SIP, particularly its use of SDP, is an example of this and which is why SIP tends to have trouble with NATs and needs assistance from things like STUN. This may the reason why Skype use so greatly dominates SIP.
HTTP/HTTPS is becoming the new transport. And HTTP/HTTPs anticipates the kind of proxying and relaying that comes as the net evolves into a lumpy world of NATs, firewalls, and application level gateways.
When your refrigerator and your toilet can both talk to your doctor, you may find your refrigerator adjusting its resupply order with the supermarket and hence your diet, based on the intestinal parasites of your weekend guests.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think they could have extended the address space in the existing IPv4 protocol to accommodate a hierarchical address space.
Instead of having a flat address space, you could have a "Network of Internets". With each country having its own 32bit address space.
The "zip code" to these 32bit address spaces comes inside a dns packet or syn packet. Isn't the IPv4 header size flexible as well?
The "zip code" would tell your machine which route to use to send the packets back. So the extra address space is actually supported by the routing table. Think 20 routes instead of one default route.
Once the packet is inside the "zip code" it functions just like a normal ipv4 packet.
Simple hacks to dns and the ipv4 code could make it all work. No hardware changes. No ridiculously large flat address space. No tunneling.
I am just afraid that it will never switch over to native, and we will be left in a tunneled limbo land forever. With the header overhead of both protocols in every packet. The ISPs will be forced into the role of tunnel brokers. And because there were so many problems with the first transition, no one will have the stomach for the second transition to native IPv6.
No business case? I'm just staring to read deep into IP6 I don't see much negative in there. And correct me if I'm wrong here but with an address space that big every damn thing on this planet many times over can have a global IP address. Google would have a field day with that type of stuff. There is like a billion addresses available for each person on planet earth and if they wanted to my jeans could have an IP address assigned to me. Basically it comes down to don't fix it till it's broken. I expect sheer panic in all news media in about two years or so.
If there is no business case for something that's nonetheless necessary, you must get the government to do it. It works well for police, health care, education, national defence, keeping our feet dry, and so on, we might as well let the government have a go at it. Just pass a law that says that every provider and server in the country has to be IPv6 enabled, wait a few months and slowly start shutting everyone down who ignores you. Costs almost nothing to implement (at least on the scale governments think in), practically can't fail, if it does fail we're back where we started, i.e. here, same as without doing anything so we've lost nothing, and if the private sector does get there before the government, we're exactly where we wanted to be also. There's no way this can go wrong, except through inaction. So call your representatives; let's get this ball rolling.
but we keep having to telling them there's no demand for it. I mean can't they understand that there's no business case for it if none of customers want it. Oh wait...
I'm going to sacrifice 5 of my mod points to comment here, just because I have to in order to refute your preposterous point.
"Climate change" and "fossil fuel supply" sure sound like big FUD points. We have little of the former, and much of the latter at this time. Thus, at this time, any radical and painful "cure" is not indicated any more than it would be for giving an ultra-aggressive course of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgury to a person who has a potentially pre-cancerous cell.
Could it be real? Yep.
Could it be wrong? Yep.
I guess some people are SO uncertainty-adverse that they would rather guarantee an absolute collapse of the entire world's economy. Absolute collapse is easy and "certain" (properly engineered) and very comforting to the asshats that actually want such a thing to happen.
We can't just up-end an installed base that would cost tens (or hundreds maybe) of trillions of dollars to replace.
Truly clean energy in abundance and cheap enough that even the poorest person can have 10 kW/h sustained in perpetuity? Yes - I'm for that.
Energy so expensive that only the richest among us can have any? Fuck that, fuck it in the ear, and fuck anyone advocating such an approach in the ass with a canon firing a shell at full velocity.
And if a new tax or "cap and trade" law makes my heating bill double, I'll be beyond angry.
Make IPv6 a rider on top of something everyone wants!
So let's make IPv6 a requirement to enable all of those Blu-ray features.
Err... wait a minute...
"customer demand for IPv6 is on the rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."
Sounds like a business case to me!
The recession occurred because there was no business case for financiers and banks using common sense.
As I noted five weeks ago, the IPv6 meme shows significant change almost one year ago. There's substantially greater chatter about IPv6 and the rate of change is up.
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entry=ipv6_revisited
Customers will not demand IPv6 until they are really hurt by poor performance in their existing installations. This means ISPs have to create demand for IPv6 to get the transition done. The best way to do this is to only allow IPv6 on new, faster services. As customers switch to faster plans, they will happily accept to upgrade their equipment. There will be a long transition period, with just a few early adopters in the beginning and then an avalanche as the majority discovers the benefits.
However, without incentives like this, I think that we will be stuck in IPv4 land for a very long time.
He and the entire 100,000 person corporation he works for are sitting behind half a dozen routable IPv4 addresses on their own private 10net. He is already overworked supporting the infrastructure which is in place already and when an IPv6 rollout is suggested the first thought which comes to mind is "Just how retarded are you?".
IPv6 is neither exotic nor frightening. Admins and programmers have been dealing with differing networking protocols for decades, including IPX, IP, OSI etc. IPv6 is nothing new. It's simply a fuck of a lot of work for little or no gain.
The question is. What is the "killer application"? If you want IPv6 adoption to proceed at faster than a crawl, you're going to have to come up with something as compelling as the WWW but which simply cannot be realistically achieved over IPv4. Maybe some sort of peer to peer mobile phone application might do it, otherwise, go away and come back when you have something worth talking about.
Deleted
"I can't even get through the setup of a DHCP server running IPv6."
That is because IPv6 networks don't generaly use DHCP. They use autoconf or similar tools.
You've found one potential confusion already. Wikipedia describes Autoconf as "a tool for producing shell scripts that automatically configure C/C++ software source code packages to adapt to many kinds of UNIX-like systems."
Now, at the real life, lots of ISPs are reluctant to make IPv6 available, and some of them will just give you one address. If you get a good one, tough, you'll have nothing to fear.
By "tough" I'll assume you meant "though" and not "tough shit". So how does one find a "good one" between only two last-mile providers in any given city?
NAT doesn't give you anything over a well-configured firewall.
Other than perhaps that newbs can easily deploy a $50 appliance that gives them NAT, a firewall that comes configured with no DMZ address and no forwarded ports out of the box, and an Internet gateway all in one.
the other problems (inbound connectivity to end-user machines) can be solved by polling or proxies.
Proxies are not a solution; they are a workaround. They double backbone traffic, as packets must travel from one machine to the proxy and from the proxy to the other machine, instead of from one machine to the other. And they still cost money to run and need some sort of revenue model to cover costs. Polling is even worse, as it adds both traffic and latency.
Everywhere I've worked for the past decade never got more than a class C block, and in most cases, a single IP address.
You just took that and NAT'd all your traffic.
To go to IPv6 means the following:
Upgrade all operating systems to support IPv6
Upgrade all routers, switches, etc.
Upgrade all end point routers
You get the idea. It'll be fairly expensive to make the switch.
I'm really looking forward to going back to having every PC with a globally routable IP address
You really think having every *Windows* machine out there having a globally-routable IP address would be a Good Thing?
While of course it's possible to run a clean Windows box if you have half a brain, millions of people don't. The idea of having them all directly on the Internet scares me.
-- My Weblog.
Seriously.
All of the important advances in Internet technology have been driven in some part by better access to pornography:
"Sir, with the new multi-widgeted-gigaplexing in the new Roto-Router2k, you'll have greater compliance with IETF standards and fewer packet-collision-related neck and back injuries."
"Ummm... I dunno."
"Oh, you'll also be able to anonymously download pr0n 1000x faster and get immediate access to young hotties in your neighborhood who are looking to Hook Up Tonight."
"I'll take it, whatever the cost."
Later that night...
"Honey, I upgraded the Interweb thing so you can watch your cat videos and Ice Dancing on YouTube in Holographic HD..."
-- My Weblog.
The official philosophy behind IPv6 addressing was that they wanted to keep everything hierarchical, to avoid the IPv4 problem that makes everybody's routing table have to keep track of (currently) ~300,000 separate routes plus whatever their own users and customers need. So they want to hand out fat blocks to ISPs, and have those ISPs hand out whatever-sized blocks to their users, and if you change ISPs, IPv6 is supposed to be easier to renumber than IPv4.
In practice, of course, this doesn't help the problem of business users who need to be multihomed for reliability, so their 2nd-Nth ISPs are still going to have to announce their little blocks to the world. There are ugly hacks like shim6 that some people think will help, but it's basically an unsolved problem. So you can generally get larger blocks if you're multihoming, and if you were asking for a /32, that's a typical ISP allocation, so it makes sense that your ISPs said to get it from ARIN.
If you wanted to get a /48, your ISP should be handing those out like candy, but of course that's still Provider-Assigned address space.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Have you looked at http://www.goscomb.net/services/ They are UK They have ADSL,Leased lines,etc (in addition to hosting services) on their ADSL-you will get /128 by default. If you request - you will get /48
on their leased lines-you will get /48 from them
They even have IPv6 DNS servers
p.s.I personally use their hosting services only(i'm not in UK), and IPv6 was one of reasons I didn't go to alternative provider.
Caching proxies routinely save traffic
If a bunch of people are viewing the same resource, this is true. But I don't see how one can cache real-time private streams, such as those seen in voice and video chat.
Department of redundancy department much?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.