[172499] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 19 19:03:27 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.xhpr8elptfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:58:44 -0700
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:27 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> 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.)
>=20
> 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.)
I'm more going for not within the useful lifetime of the protocol.
I figure we'll be lucky if IPv6 doesn't hit some non-address-size =
related scaling limit in less than 50 years. As such, I figure a =
conservative protocol lifetime of 100 years is not unreasonable.
If you read the rest of my post, you would realize that I wasn't arguing =
to give out addresses to every person and their dog, but instead arguing =
that trying to shift bits to the right would be costly and pointless =
because there are more than enough bits on the left site already.
If you can provide any sort of math to back up a claim to the contrary, =
then let's see it.
If all you've got is we have grossly underestimated demand in the past, =
then I say sure, but we've so grossly overprovided for our estimate of =
demand in this case that it's unlikely to be an issue in any probable =
lifetime of the protocol.
Owen
