Re: Another v6 question

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:20:01 -0600
Max Pierson <nmaxpierson () gmail com> wrote:

> > I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
> addresses
> > in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
> and
> > then some.
>
> As Roland said,
> "Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
> nobody has heretofore thought of, heh."
>
> > If I knew, then, I'd be well on my way to much greater wealth. Whatever it
> is, I am only
> > certain of the following things about it:
> >       1.      We have no idea what the requirements will be at this time.
>
>
> I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld that said...
> "But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't
> know."
>
> What if that unknown comes in the form of "mass address consumption"? But
> from your view, that's not possible, so i'll just move on.

We know both what the IPv6 addressing architecture is and what the
current IANA/RIR etc. addressing policies are - nothing is an
"unknown unknown". *Unexpected* "mass address consumption" is not
possible unless and until the current addressing policies change. It is
only those who wish to play thought games with how they could abuse
128 bit addresses that are pretending these architectural decisions and
policies don't exist and won't be enforced.


        Mark