[182362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 15 15:20:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <98BB1D4D-73E4-4D60-B910-2A05449D45B6@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:20:08 -0700
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:32 , David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
>> Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US
>> organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on =
all
>> of Vietnam got one /26.
>=20
> IIRC (I was running APNIC at the time), when the first organization =
from Vietnam approached APNIC for address space, we allocated a /22 to =
them and reserved the /16 from which that allocation was made for other =
ISPs in Vietnam (as was the policy back then).
>=20
>> That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide =
abundant
>> address space.
>=20
> There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with =
stupid allocation policies.
>=20
True. However, are you making the argument that any of the current or =
proposed allocation policies are, in fact, stupid in such a way that =
this is likely?
If so, which ones?
If not, then how is that relevant to the current discussion of what to =
do in terms of deployment given existing policies?
Owen
