[172474] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Jun 19 14:38:58 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:27:39 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3BC1E2A4-5503-4499-BE87-133EF61458CC@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:17:29 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Let's figure each person needs an end site for their place of business,
> their two cars, their home, their vacation home, and just for good
> measure, let's double that to be ultra-conservative. That's 10 end-sites
> per person or 101 billion end sites.
Can we stop with the lame "every person, and their dog!" numbering plans.
The same MISTAKE has been repeated so many times in recent history you'd
think people would know better. It's the exact same wrong-think that was
applied to the 32bit IPv4 addressing in an era where there were a few
dozen computers worldwide. (also that IPv4 was an "experiment" that was
never imagined to be this big.)
We're smart enough to mis-manage *any* resource. It's just a matter of
"when" that it'll be back to haunt us. ("not within my lifetime" seems to
be a very popular compromise.)
