Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <CANjVB-jbtc4V5yba0xtGA7N5geQcz86hvydj4J9J8UxhzMMEZw () mail gmail com>
, George Metz writes:
> 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.

I did that math ~30 years ago '88, when I got my first address
blocks, and realised that IPv4 wasn't sustainable then.

> 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.

We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly
to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone.  Note
also the other 7/8ths the IPv6 space is reserved for unicast
addresses.  Class E was reserved for experimentation so in reality
there is no comparison.

> 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.

How many sites per person on the planet do you see in use in a 100
years, 1000 years.  Out of this 1/8th there is around 350 per /
person with /48's.

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <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=E2=80=99t really be all that many=E2=80=A6
> >
> >
> > 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP.
> >
> > 7,000,000,000 * 32 =3D 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 =3D 1,792 total /16s
> > consumed.
> >
> > Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I=
> =E2=80=99m
> > still alive
> > when we do, I=E2=80=99ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be e=
> nacted
> > while we
> > burn through the second /3. That=E2=80=99ll still leave us 75% of the add=
> ress
> > space to work
> > with on that new policy.
> >
> > If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let=E2=
> =80=99s
> > talk about
> > an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it=E2=80=99s pa=
> rtner /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=E2=80=99m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately ju=
> stify a
> > /16.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
> > >
> > > Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org