[121765] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jan 26 13:27:08 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B5F0243.2040605@ttec.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:21:02 -0800
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>=20
>> No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
>>=20
>> However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can =
always apply a more conservative
>> numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to =
innovate and try other alternatives).
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> Owen,
>=20
> We have had this conversation before, but I just wanted to put my two =
cents out there again.
>=20
> I dont view /3 as a safety valve. I view it as a possible escape pod =
from a sinking ship.
>=20
> If it needs to be utilized, the entire world has been dealt a large =
disservice - something great pains should be taken to avoid. I doubt it =
would be an "oops, ime sorry, no harm done".
>=20
> It should not be a factor to add risk into allocation design.
>=20
> Furthermore, any allocation holder trying the same trick of reserving =
a greater than half of their block for the safety valve in their =
numbering scheme might quickly discover that their block is a bit more =
cramped than they thought it would be.
>=20
> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>=20
> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>=20
> Joe
Decades... I think that a combination of other factors will likely =
conspire within decades to render the current
IPv6 protocol obsolete and drive adoption of a replacement protocol. I =
don't know what those factors are,
but, historically, few things in technology have stood the test of =
decades. Almost nothing has stood the test
of centuries.
Owen
