[143507] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Aug 11 08:32:44 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F97F5C39-5F3D-472F-AC4E-EC1EE3925F07@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:25:55 -0700
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>=20
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>=20
>> 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.)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
I disagree. I think current policy in several RIRs (APNIC, especially) =
is far too conservative
and that we do need to rewrite it. That's why I submitted prop-090 which =
has taken the
feedback I received into account and become prop-098.
Owen
