[117881] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Mon Oct 5 19:51:09 2009
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:50:15 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
To: Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov
In-Reply-To: <OFE032105D.4243EF78-ON85257646.0080C88E-85257646.00821BD9@frbog.frb.gov>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/05/2009 04:41 PM, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov wrote:
> The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
> any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
> as a residential customer, I will be provided a /64, which means each
> individual on Earth will have roughly 1 billion addresses each.
> Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
> issues with routing /48's globally, I think you will find more
> organizations fighting for /32s or smaller... so what once was a
> astonomical number of addresses that one cannot concieve numerically, soon
> becomes much smaller. I can see an IPv7 in the future, and doing it all
> over again... I just hope I retire before it comes... The only difference
> I can see between IPv4 and IPv6 is how much of a pain it is to type a 128
> bit address... Just like back in the day when Class B networks were
> handed out like candy, one day we will be figuring out how to put in
> emergency allocations on the ARIN listserv for IPv6 because of address
> exhaustion and waste.
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the "finite" address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about running
out of name space in English which is probably more "finite" than ipv6.
Mike
