[182253] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 14 13:02:11 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANjVB-jbtc4V5yba0xtGA7N5geQcz86hvydj4J9J8UxhzMMEZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:00:07 -0700
To: George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
30 years ago, if you=E2=80=99d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using =
the internet 30 years
ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad.
If you asked anyone 30 years ago =E2=80=9Cwill 4 billion internet =
addresses be enough if everyone
ends up using the internet?=E2=80=9D, they all would have told you =E2=80=9C=
no way.=E2=80=9D.
I will again repeat=E2=80=A6 Let=E2=80=99s try liberal allocations until =
we use up the first /3. I bet we don=E2=80=99t
finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6.
If I=E2=80=99m wrong and we burn through the first /3 while I am still =
alive, I will happily help you
get more restrictive policy for the remaining 3/4 of the IPv6 address =
space while we
continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed.
Owen
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 06:23 , George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 =
years ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion =
IPv4 addresses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you =
were stark raving mad. That's what's really got most of the people who =
want (dare I say more sane?) more restrictive allocations to be the =
default concerned; 30 years ago the math for how long IPv4 would last =
would have been compelling as well, which is why we have the entire =
Class E block just unusable and large blocks of IP address space that =
people were handed for no particular reason than it sounded like a good =
idea at the time.
>=20
> It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in =
the insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world =
where IPv6 depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist =
far sooner than one might expect.
>=20
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com =
<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
> How so?
>=20
> There are 8192 /16s in the current /3.
>=20
> ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming =
32 end-sites per person
> can=E2=80=99t really be all that many=E2=80=A6
>=20
>=20
> 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP.
>=20
> 7,000,000,000 * 32 =3D 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 =3D 1,792 total =
/16s consumed.
>=20
> Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and =
I=E2=80=99m still alive
> when we do, I=E2=80=99ll help you promote more restrictive policy to =
be enacted while we
> burn through the second /3. That=E2=80=99ll still leave us 75% of the =
address space to work
> with on that new policy.
>=20
> If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, =
let=E2=80=99s talk about
> an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it=E2=80=99s =
partner /9 with an
> RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining =
NAT
> fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast =
off to
> waste.
>=20
> Yeah, I=E2=80=99m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately =
justify a /16.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> > On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com =
<mailto:jmaimon@ttec.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
> >
> > Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.
>=20
>=20
