[Sis-csi] IPv6?

[Marc Blanchet]

Le 07-06-07 à 10:27, Edward Greenberg a écrit :

> Marc,  Maybe this is a dumb question but if the all the Earth  
> systems are transferring to IPv6

I would not say transferring, but there will be:
- v4 only systems/computers/applications that will remain v4 and  
slowly phase out.
- dual-stack (v4/v6) where v4 will slowly be less used
- v6-only systems

Transition to v6 will include a significant time where both protocols  
will be used. And IP stacks and v6 is designed to handle that pretty  
easily.

> is there anyone that is the broker for trading IPv6 address space  
> for IPv4 address space.  If so then by 2010 there should be lots of  
> IPv4 addresses available.

I don't think so. people will keep their v4 address space  
"forever".   Transition time until v4 is gone will be looooong... I  
will be retired before no more v4 exists...

>   If NASA transforms itself to IPv6 then what happens to all of  
> NASA's IPv4 address?

again, the question is not to transform, is to use v4 and v6 which is  
the normal way to migrate.

> If JSC transfers over to IPv6 would there be enough IPv4 addresses  
> to accommodate NASA's space address space needs indefinitely?

again, I'm not sure transforming to v6-only is easy to do and the  
right thing to do. so many systems are v4-only and "difficult (ie.  
say very costly with no good ROI)" to port to IPv6. Therefore, it is  
likely that many systems will remain v4.

What I'm saying is that:
- there should be some significant thoughts on considering v6 as the  
primary IP protocol for space, given the context.
- currently, I might be wrong, but v4 is considered as primary IP  
protocol for cislunar and v6 is "on the side".  no criticism, just  
stating real situation.
- if there is concensus that v6 becomes the primary IP protocol, then  
a migration discussion to how to handle it, what to do with v4  
systems, etc... need to be discussed.
- right now, I see that v6 does not have the "right" weight in the  
discussions and we might just make a mistake in the long term if we  
don't spend enough thoughts on it.

rephrasing:
- I think we are currently counting too much on v4 in the current  
protocol discussions for cislunar, given the exhaustion of v4 address  
space.
- (not to discuss advantages of v6 such as mobility, autoconfig, etc...)
- and we should think much more on using v6 than up to now, since it  
might be the only good and available transport IP protocol in the  
future.

Regards,
Marc.




>
>
>
> At 10:06 AM -0400 6/7/07, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  as you might have noticed, ARIN board recently advised the  
>> community that IPv4 addresses are going away and push the  
>> community to consider IPv6 asap... The concensus currently is that  
>> IPv4 addresses will be gone by 2010 from the IANA pool and then x  
>> months later from the RIR pool.  Given that space projects are  
>> "long term" projects, at the time some IP address space will be  
>> needed for space in, say 2012, then v4 addresses won't be  
>> available. only IPv6 addresses will be available.
>>  given the multi-international scope of space projects, I can't  
>> imagine having IPv4 NATs between spacecrafts that forces VoIP  
>> traffic to go through earth just because of traversing NAT...  
>> ouach....
>>  therefore, I think this group should really consider:
>> - ipv6 as the primary IP protocol
>> - ipv6 as possible only IP protocol
>> - designing a contingency plan if v4 is still considered.
>>
>> comments?
>>
>> references:
>> - ARIN board resolution on IPv4/Ipv6: http://www.arin.net/ 
>> announcements/20070521.html
>> - exhaustion of IPv4 address space timeline: http:// 
>> www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sis-CSI mailing list
>> Sis-CSI at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-csi

-----
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca