Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>]

Owen,

By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong with giving single companies very liberal 
/8 allocations? Companies that for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. 
History cuts both ways. 

I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spanking new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. 
That's just reasonable caution. 

We can always be more generous later. 

 -mel beckman

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> 30 years ago, if you’d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the internet 30 years
> ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad.
>
> If you asked anyone 30 years ago “will 4 billion internet addresses be enough if everyone
> ends up using the internet?”, they all would have told you “no way.”.
>
> I will again repeat… Let’s try liberal allocations until we use up the first /3. I bet we don’t
> finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6.
>
> If I’m 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 space while we
> continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 06:23 , George Metz <george.metz () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go 
> > through all four billion IPv4 addresses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving 
> > 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 years 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 large blocks of IP address space that people were handed 
> > for no particular reason than it sounded like a good idea at the time.
> >
> > 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 sooner than one 
> > might expect.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com <mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
> > How so?
> >
> > There are 8192 /16s in the current /3.
> >
> > ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming 32 end-sites per person
> > can’t really be all that many…
> >
> >
> > 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP.
> >
> > 7,000,000,000 * 32 = 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 = 1,792 total /16s consumed.
> >
> > Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I’m still alive
> > when we do, I’ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be enacted while we
> > burn through the second /3. That’ll still leave us 75% of the address space to work
> > with on that new policy.
> >
> > If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let’s talk about
> > an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it’s partner /9 with an
> > RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT
> > fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off to
> > waste.
> >
> > Yeah, I’m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately justify a /16.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com <mailto:jmaimon () ttec com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > JimBob’s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
> > >
> > > Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.