[182255] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Tue Jul 14 13:14:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:13:57 +0000
In-Reply-To: <F87E76C2-0AB8-4BE9-B8FE-BE4CE2BA58EF@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Owen,
By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wron=
g with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies that =
for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4=
addresses. History cuts both ways.=20
I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spanking=
new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable caution.=20
We can always be more generous later.=20
-mel beckman
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> 30 years ago, if you=92d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the int=
ernet 30 years
> ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad.
>=20
> If you asked anyone 30 years ago =93will 4 billion internet addresses be =
enough if everyone
> ends up using the internet?=94, they all would have told you =93no way.=
=94.
>=20
> I will again repeat=85 Let=92s try liberal allocations until we use up th=
e first /3. I bet we don=92t
> finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6.
>=20
> If I=92m 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 spa=
ce while we
> continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
>> 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 address=
es in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark ravi=
ng mad. That's what's really got most of the people who want (dare I say mo=
re sane?) more restrictive allocations to be the default concerned; 30 year=
s ago the math for how long IPv4 would last would have been compelling as w=
ell, 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 t=
he insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IP=
v6 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:o=
wen@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 3=
2 end-sites per person
>> can=92t really be all that many=85
>>=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 /16=
s consumed.
>>=20
>> Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I=
=92m still alive
>> when we do, I=92ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be enacte=
d while we
>> burn through the second /3. That=92ll 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=
=92s talk about
>> an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it=92s 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=92m 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:jmaimo=
n@ttec.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> JimBob=92s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
>>>=20
>>> Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
