When IPv6?
in [Linux Networking]
|
Prev: How to force card speed ?
Next: NFS root problem
From: Keith Keller on 21 Apr 2008 18:44 On 2008-04-21, Rick Jones <rick.jones2(a)hp.com> wrote: > Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > >> It could be on an RFC1918 network, in which case all those nodes >> aren't using up the IPv4 address space. I think it will be more >> common to see internal hosts using that network space rather than >> ''real'' IPs, though I can't imagine it'd be enough to make IPv6 >> unneeded long-term. > > Ah, but if it were IPv6 then there would be enough address space for > Moe's Insurer to reach-out and verify that the "right" things were > happening with his care... See? People resisting IPv6 does have benefits. ;-) --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Moe Trin on 21 Apr 2008 23:20
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <fuj45i$d9b$1(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com>, Rick Jones wrote: >Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: >> Moe Trin <ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld> wrote: >>> I was in for surgery earlier this year, and while recovering enough >>> to be able to go home, spoke with a tech who came in to fix a >>> problem with the medical monitor system they had me wired up to (BP, >>> EKG, Blood oxygen levels, $DEITY knows what else). The monitor in >>> the room was connected to the nurses stations over IP. >> It could be on an RFC1918 network It had better be, or they are in deep weeds with the Feds. (Actually, it was - 172.30.12.0/22, because I was on the 4th floor apparently.) >> in which case all those nodes aren't using up the IPv4 address space. >> I think it will be more common to see internal hosts using that >> network space rather than ''real'' IPs, though I can't imagine it'd >> be enough to make IPv6 unneeded long-term. Yes and no - there really are a lot of addresses that have no need to be accessible from the world (the hospital monitor systems being one example) and a considerable number that could have their Internet access met through proxies. The next question you run into is how to get those addresses back from their assignments. Using comcast as an example, they have (at least) 23.2 million addresses (so says my firewall) and of those, a mere 1.1 million are in blocks claimed to be "Comcast Business". You could easily reclaim the equivalent of a /8 because those addresses could all use NAT (surely you are not running servers on residential IPs, right? ;-) Fat chance. >Ah, but if it were IPv6 then there would be enough address space for >Moe's Insurer to reach-out and verify that the "right" things were >happening with his care... Minor sore point - going 'round and 'round with them with the concept of in-network verses out-of-network providers, and which pot of money they get paid out of. Still, a lot of medical records/data are on computers already. One hopes they are controlling access a bit better than mere credit card data. Oh, and regarding comcast: They have an IPv6 block - a /32 which is only 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 addresses. That would allow them to give every customer a /96, which is as wide as all of IPv4 land, Doesn't every house _need_ 4 billion IP addresses? ;-) One day, I suppose they might. Good to see that the IETF is ready with RFC1606. Old guy |