[143497] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Aug 11 00:39:35 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E4335CA.807@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:29:35 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote:
>=20
>> what is the life expectancy of IPv6? It won't live forever and we
>> can't reasonably expect it too. I understand we don't want run out =
of
>> addresses in the next 10-40 years but what about 100? 200? 300?
>>=20
>> We will run out and our decedents will go through re-numbering again.
>> The question becomes what is the life expectancy of IPv6 and does the
>> allocation plan make a reasonable attempt to run out of addresses
>> around the end of the expected life of IPv6.
>=20
> Well, we know that the human population will stabilise somewhere below
> ten billion by around 2050. The current unicast space provides for =
about
> 15 trillion /48s. Let's assume that the RIRs and ISPs retain their =
current
> level of engineering common sense - i.e. the address space will begin =
to be
> really full when there are about 25% of those /48s being routed... =
that makes
> 3.75 trillion /48s routed for ten billion people, or 375 /48s per man, =
woman
> and child. (Or about 25 million /64s if you prefer.)
It's not the humans that are going to soak up the address space, so it =
seems a little misguided to count up the humans a reference for the =
bounding properties on growth. That said I think 2000::/3 will last long =
enough, that we shouldn't be out rewriting policy anytime soon.
> At that point, IANA would have to release unicast space other than =
2000::/3
> and we could start again with a new allocation policy.
>=20
> I am *really* not worried about this. Other stuff, such as BGP4, will =
break
> irrevocably long before this.
We have a few problems to solve along the way. Running the current =
network is hard enough as it is.
> Brian
>=20
