Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

On 7/14/15 6:23 AM, George Metz wrote:
> 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.

I've been trying to stay out of this Nth repetition of the same 
nonsensical debate, since neither side has anything new to add. However 
George makes a valid point, which is "learn from the mistakes of the past."

So let me ask George, who seems like a reasonable fellow ... do you 
think that creating an addressing plan that is more than adequate for 
even the wildest dreams of current users and future growth out of just 
1/8 of the available space (meaning of course that we have 7/8 left to 
work with should we make a complete crap-show out of 2000::/3) 
constitutes being prudent, or not?

And please note, this is not a snark, I am genuinely interested in the 
answer. I used to be one of the people responsible for the prudent use 
of the integers (as the former IANA GM) so this is something I've put a 
lot of thought into, and care deeply about. If there is something we've 
missed in concocting the current plan, I definitely want to know about it.

Even taking into account some of the dubious decisions that were made 20 
years ago, the numbers involved in IPv6 deployment are literally so 
overwhelming that the human brain has a hard time conceiving of them. 
Combine that with the conservation mindset that's been drilled into 
everyone regarding IPv4 resources, and a certain degree of 
over-enthusiasm for conserving IPv6 resources is understandable. But at 
the same time, because the volume of integers is so vast, it could be 
just as easy to slip into the early-days v4 mindset of "infinite," which 
is why I like to hear a good reality check now and again. :)

Doug

--
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. 
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not 
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or 
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature