[124670] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Apr 3 14:55:18 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004031210090.7848@castor.opentrend.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:54:43 -1000
To: Robert Brockway <robert@timetraveller.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Just like 640k or memory :)
> But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever =
need". The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for =
a long time. That's a better analogy for IPv6.
Not really.
The reason some folks aren't sanguine about the amount of address space =
available in IPv6 is because (a) it is a fixed size and (b) the policies =
by which the address space are allocated are subject to the whims of =
human behavior.
For example, recently in RIPE, they were folks arguing for people to be =
able to get /24s just by saying they were using a particular transition =
strategy. For another example, there are governments arguing in the ITU =
that countries should receive large blocks (/8s have been suggested) so =
IP addresses could be handed out like telephone numbers (the concepts of =
route system scalability are irrelevant to these folks). =20
With these sorts of policies being seriously suggested, it is probably =
appropriate for folks who remember the history of address policy to =
speak out.
Regards,
-drc
