[182262] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Tue Jul 14 15:36:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:35:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BFAF42F6-13F7-4181-A7C1-B01F389DF308@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential subscribers. Ne=
ither do I mind if they give out /56s. That still gives every residential c=
ustomer 256 /64 subnets.=20
I don't see this as something that needs to become a standard. Those end-us=
ers who want more can ask for more fro their ISP whenever the need arises. =
If there is a market for selling those larger prefixes to end users, that's=
free enterprise, which I also support.=20
I don't think it's wise to delegate by rule or convention that the entire f=
irst 1/8th of IPv6 space should be delegated in /48s. You see this as not a=
huge deal. To me, 12.5% is a huge deal.
I appreciate your offer to give your services away for free to remedy any p=
roblems the /3 bolus creates. But as history has shown, neither of us is li=
kely to be in circulation -- or even alive -- when a problem would occur. =
=20
-mel beckman
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> You don=92t think holding nearly 7/8ths of the address space in reserve f=
or a future addressing policy is adequate judiciuosness?
>=20
> The IPv4 /8s constituted 1/2 of the address space. The /16s another 1/4, =
and the /24s an additional 1/8th at the time.
> Overall, that was 7/8ths of the address space assigned to unicast and 9/1=
6ths allocated if you included multicast.
>=20
> In IPv6, we have 1/8th set aside for unicast, 1/256th for multicast, 1/25=
6th for ULA, 1/1024th for link-local, and
> a couple of infinitesimal fractions set aside for other things like local=
host, IPV6_ADDR_ANY, etc.
>=20
> As I said, let=92s be liberal as designed with the first /3. If I=92m wro=
ng and you can prove it in my remaining lifetime, I will happily
> help you develop more restrictive allocation policy for the remaining 3/4=
while the second /3 is used to continue growing the
> IPv6 internet.
>=20
> Whatever unexpected thing causes us to finish off the first /3 likely won=
=92t burn through the second /3 before we can
> respond with new policy. We still have almost 3/4 of the address space av=
ailable for more restrictive allocations.
>=20
> Frankly, I bet about 1/8th of the IPv4 address space probably is in the h=
ands of the top 64 organizations. Maybe more.
>=20
> In this case, 1/8th of the address space will more than cover the entire =
known need many many many times over, even
> with very liberal allocations.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:13 , Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> Owen,
>>=20
>> By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything w=
rong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies th=
at for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of I=
Pv4 addresses. History cuts both ways.=20
>>=20
>> I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spank=
ing new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable caution.=20
>>=20
>> We can always be more generous later.=20
>>=20
>> -mel beckman
>>=20
>>> 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 i=
nternet 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 b=
e 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 =
the 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 s=
pace 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 year=
s ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addre=
sses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark ra=
ving 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 ye=
ars 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 larg=
e blocks of IP address space that people were handed for no particular reas=
on 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 soone=
r 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=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 /=
16s 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 enac=
ted while we
>>>> burn through the second /3. That=92ll still leave us 75% of the addres=
s 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 partn=
er /9 with an
>>>> RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining N=
AT
>>>> fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast o=
ff to
>>>> waste.
>>>>=20
>>>> Yeah, I=92m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately justi=
fy a /16.
>>>>=20
>>>> Owen
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com <mailto:jmai=
mon@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
