[address-policy-wg] applicability of a request for 60000 IPv4 addresses/systems in one shot...

>Yes, with a majority of them I had already discussed. And we all agree
that 
> if there was IPv4 support in glite it would have been so much better.
> (Or, if we were grid middleware developers, which we are clearly not).

It's too bad that this one particular grid technology is not yet
available
using IPv6 but this is not the only way to build a grid. I think you are
missing an opportunity to partner with developers and do something
innovative
that would benefit the larger community.

> Has anybody ever done a large VPN-for-VMs IPv4 adress space 
> allocation?
> I have never heard of something like that (end2end) but 
> perhaps it exists; and am well aware though of some 
> -open/public- IPv6 tunneling solutions.

Yes. 
<http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=N%20.%20AMAZON-EC2-2>
<http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=N%20.%20AMAZON-EC2-3>
<http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=N%20.%20AMAZON-EC2-4>

The thing that worries me about giving any kind of special support
to any sort of VM deployment is that it will cause the IPv4
address space to run out sooner. The consumption rate is no
longer constrained to the number of CPU chips produced but
now can grow faster which leads to a power law increase in 
demand.

> In other words, reserving experimental IPv4 address space is 
> no longer our first option, since normal IPv4 address space 
> appears to be doable.

Good.
It won't be too long before someone suggests changing policies
to no longer accept virtual machines as a justification for 
address space.

--Michael Dillon