[182303] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Tue Jul 14 20:38:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:38:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CANjVB-jbtc4V5yba0xtGA7N5geQcz86hvydj4J9J8UxhzMMEZw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--w5MssA7J1fBHIWavrjsKPet5KeAUtlUjK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 7/14/15 6:23 AM, George Metz wrote:
> 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 I=
Pv6
> depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner=
> than one might expect.
I've been trying to stay out of this Nth repetition of the same=20
nonsensical debate, since neither side has anything new to add. However=20
George makes a valid point, which is "learn from the mistakes of the past=
=2E"
So let me ask George, who seems like a reasonable fellow ... do you=20
think that creating an addressing plan that is more than adequate for=20
even the wildest dreams of current users and future growth out of just=20
1/8 of the available space (meaning of course that we have 7/8 left to=20
work with should we make a complete crap-show out of 2000::/3)=20
constitutes being prudent, or not?
And please note, this is not a snark, I am genuinely interested in the=20
answer. I used to be one of the people responsible for the prudent use=20
of the integers (as the former IANA GM) so this is something I've put a=20
lot of thought into, and care deeply about. If there is something we've=20
missed in concocting the current plan, I definitely want to know about it=
=2E
Even taking into account some of the dubious decisions that were made 20 =
years ago, the numbers involved in IPv6 deployment are literally so=20
overwhelming that the human brain has a hard time conceiving of them.=20
Combine that with the conservation mindset that's been drilled into=20
everyone regarding IPv4 resources, and a certain degree of=20
over-enthusiasm for conserving IPv6 resources is understandable. But at=20
the same time, because the volume of integers is so vast, it could be=20
just as easy to slip into the early-days v4 mindset of "infinite," which =
is why I like to hear a good reality check now and again. :)
Doug
--=20
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures.=20
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not=20
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or=20
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
--w5MssA7J1fBHIWavrjsKPet5KeAUtlUjK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpaubAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEFs8H+gInC47DDd4S7V/zsdh16Nra
ppn9Swo+5BdEfvVxIS4G61+sJeiBD+hc2Mvq3KKpbGGyXS2VIE3sd+HDyDN+EOxW
CagNdCRq6bCwDwumkz2BeCOxUbzRXyTb2erzFdqteQk2pF12Z+AXkFKCiGV8aDdJ
0/wHrIstvYFlXbZI0I4TV1ujbf+uFULhf4tMM7xRO1W+FTBC8s3eUvAN71ahnrbi
vspDDv2QORXJ34I7RdI1op3T9qya4XyNXrIrzdeUmB1JeVNq/diZQK0oS1hyGO9O
VMra6pz/3c936zrVYRhJcmz9e6tpplc7ciiqk/SMeUUedRMuNSUr8BCgAuJsGo8=
=g+bR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--w5MssA7J1fBHIWavrjsKPet5KeAUtlUjK--
