[181957] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Thu Jul 9 04:03:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: "Israel G. Lugo" <israel.lugo@lugosys.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 02:35:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CEB56C2D-255E-41E7-8815-E33EF617231E@beckman.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Draw the lines=20
-mel via cell
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>=20
> Israel,
>=20
> You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF en=
gineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic we've=
just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm inclined to=
give them the benefit of the doubt. :)
>=20
> -mel via cell
>=20
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Israel G. Lugo <israel.lugo@lugosys.com> wro=
te:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 07/09/2015 02:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Here=92s the problem=85 You started at the wrong end and worked in the =
wrong direction in your planning.
>>>=20
>>> [...get larger allocation...]
>>>=20
>>> We are now left with only 1,041,888 /20s remaining. You still haven=92t=
put a dent in it.
>>=20
>> I am aware of the math, and how it can fit. I will concede that a /20 is
>> sufficient.
>>=20
>> Note, however, the difference in orders of magnitude for typical
>> allocations. I realize in ARIN side you've got e.g. Comcast with
>> multiple /20s, but in RIPE that is not so common. My home ISP has 3x
>> /32s. As I said, default ISP/LIR allocation here is from /32 to /29.
>> Yes, shorter prefixes can be justified and obtained, but it's not the no=
rm.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> It=92s not=85 It=92s a great example of how not to plan your address sp=
ace in IPv6.
>>>=20
>>> However, if we repeat the same exercise in the correct direction, not o=
nly does each of your end-sites get a /48, you get the /20 you need in orde=
r to properly deploy your network. You get lots of space left over, and we =
still don=92t make a dent in the IPv6 free pool. Everyone wins.
>>=20
>> You basically just said "get a larger allocation"... Which was my point
>> all along. /32 is not enough, and even /24 could be made much roomier.
>>=20
>> Speaking of IPv6's full potential: we're considering 32 subscriptions
>> per client. I've read people thinking of things like IPv6-aware soda
>> cans. Refrigerators. Wearables. Cars and their internal components...
>> You could have the on-board computer talking to the suspension via IPv6,
>> and reporting back to the manufacturer or whatnot.
>>=20
>> Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the whole "refrigerators
>> ordering milk bottles" craze, but hey, it may very well become a thing.
>> And other stuff we haven't thought of yet.
>>=20
>> My point is: we're changing to a brand new protocol, and only now
>> beginning to scratch its full potential. Yes, everything seems very big
>> right now. Yes, 128 bits can be enough. Even 64 bits could be more than
>> enough. But why limit ourselves? Someone decided (corretly) that 64
>> would be too limiting.
>>=20
>> Please don't fall into the usual "you've got more addresses than
>> atoms"... I've heard that, and am not disputing it. I'm not just talking
>> about individual addresses (or /48's).
>>=20
>> What I am proposing here, as food for thought, is: what if we had e.g.
>> 192 bits, or 256? For one, we could have much sparser allocations. Heck,
>> we could even go as far as having a bit for each day of the month. What
>> would this be good for? I don't know. Perhaps someone may come up with a
>> use for it.
>>=20
