Clarification with IPV6 and previous

[ron.peterson at yellowbank.com (ron.peterson at yellowbank.com)]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:59:49PM -0400, Mark J. Dulcey wrote:
> kgleason.ma.ultranet at rcn.com wrote:
> >Can anyone tell me the maximum theoretical number of addresses with IPv4 as
> >opposed to IPv6? Is is my impression that with IPv4 you would have
> >256*256*256*256 (or am I wrong)?
> 
> Correct in a certain sense, but wrong in another.

But then add SNAT masquerading...

I'm lucky to work in an organization with a class B address space.  We
have all the addresses we need.  We still masquerade, but primarily for
the purpose of creating test networks or security, not because we have
to to get the number of addresses we need.  Where I sysadmin'd
previously, I used masquerading to do exactly that - turn a single T1 ip
address into as many 172.16/12 addresses as I wanted.

The following list is kinda interesting.  GE is tops, after IANA itself.
BBN is next in line, and then the army.  MIT is the first university
listed.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

My own personal view is that applications that don't work via NAT will
drive the push to IPv6.  I.E. - the college where I work won't be at the
forefront, because we have all the IPv4 addresses we need.  It will be
the little guys who start clamoring for an upgrade.  I'm kinda wondering
where this will leave MIT in all of this.  The last will be first.  It's
all very biblical.  We're living in the end times. :)

-- 
Ron Peterson                   -o)
87 Taylor Street               /\\
Granby, MA  01033             _\_v
https://www.yellowbank.com/   ----