[182373] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jul 15 17:25:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.x1tz9mx9tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:23:52 -0700
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>>>> 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?
>=20
> What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** =
were they thinking".
But I can already say =E2=80=9Cwhat the F*** were they thinking about =
/60.
I can kind of see it being valid on /56.
I have a harder time arguing about /52s, but once you go that far is =
there any meaningful difference that makes it worth the trouble not =
going to /48?
Besides, if /48s don=E2=80=99t become tomorrows what the f*** were they =
thinking, then it will be something else.
I will point out that nobody has said =E2=80=9Cwhat the F*** were they =
thinking=E2=80=9D when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead =
of just 640k, but lots of people have said =E2=80=9Cwhat the F*** were =
they thinking when they limited it to 640k.=E2=80=9D
Owen
