[182368] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Wed Jul 15 16:34:45 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'George Metz'" <george.metz@gmail.com>,
"'Doug Barton'" <dougb@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <CANjVB-hktATZdcHLhUgEuZx5nYkSCixvYR-xsQiKC76W9QRJZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:34:34 -0700
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
George Metz wrote:
> > snip
> > Split the difference, go with a /52
> >>
> >
> > That's not splitting the difference. :) A /56 is half way between a
> > /48 and a /64. That's 256 /64s, for those keeping score at home.
> >
>=20
> It's splitting the difference between a /56 and a /48. I can't imagine =
short of
> the Nanotech Revolution that anyone really needs eight thousand =
separate
> networks, and even then... Besides, I recall someone at some point =
being
> grumpy about oddly numbered masks, and a /51 is probably going to trip
> that. :)
>=20
> I think folks are missing the point in part of the conservationists, =
and all the
> math in the world isn't going to change that. While the... let's call =
them IPv6
> Libertines... are arguing that there's no mathematically foreseeable =
way
> we're going to run out of addresses even at /48s for the proverbial =
soda
> cans, the conservationists are going, "Yes, you do math wonderfully.
> Meantime is it REALLY causing anguish for someone to only get
> 256 (or 1024, or 4096) networks as opposed to 65,536 of them? If not, =
why
> not go with the smaller one? It bulletproofs us against the unforeseen =
to an
> extent."
You are looking at this from the perspective of a network manager, and =
not considering the implications of implementing plug-n-play for =
consumers. A network manager can construct a very efficient topology =
with a small number of bits, but automation has to make "gross waste" =
trade-offs to "just work" when a consumer plugs things together without =
understanding the technology constraints.=20
Essentially the conservationist argument is demanding waste, because the =
unallocated prefixes will still be sitting on the shelf in 400 years. It =
would be better to allocate them now and allow innovation at the cpe =
level, rather than make it too costly for cpe vendors to work around all =
the random allocation sizes in addition to the random ways people plug =
the devices together.=20
>=20
> As an aside, someone else has stated that for one reason or another =
IPv6 is
> unlikely to last more than a couple of decades, and so even if =
something
> crazy happened to deplete it, the replacement would be in place anyhow
> before it could. I would like to ask what about the last 20 years of =
IPv6
> adoption in the face of v4 exhaustion inspires someone to believe that =
just
> because it's better that people will be willing to make the change =
over?
TDM voice providers had 100 years of history on their side, but voip =
won, because cheaper always wins.=20
