nanog mailing list archives

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too


From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:48:18 -0500

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lee Howard <lee () asgard org> wrote:



From: <christopher.morrow () gmail com> on behalf of Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM
To: Lee Howard <lee () asgard org>
Cc: Mike <mike-nanog () tiedyenetworks com>, nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too



On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Lee Howard <lee () asgard org> wrote:


I’ve tried several times to come up with a scenario that leads to
depletion in less than 200 years, and I haven’t managed it. Can you do it?


during some ARIN discussions that revolved around Transition Technologies
and allocations to large ISPs, there were more than a few folk batting
around the idea that they may need to allocate a /24 or a /20 even to a
single provider.

I believe DT has a /19 assigned to them currently? how many /19's are
there in the v6 space? (524288-ish)
That's only ~100x the current number of active ASN in the field. It's
unclear (to me) how many of those could/would justify a /19 equivalent, and
how fast the ASN field is growing over time.


DT is one of the largest ISPs in the world, isn’t it?


it's large, but really it's going to hit the same number of homes (about)
as att/verizon/comcast/embarq ... and I'm sure ntt, 'russian cableco', the
5 china-cablecos etc. Right?

germany is ~83m people... 100x that is about 1.2x world population, so ...
it seems conceivable that there are ~100 isps (one per country) about the
same size, right?


Can you devise a scenario in which there are 524,288 ISPs the size of DT?


I think I did something in my reply which I should not have done, I
conflated the DT issue and the transition technology discussion...splitting
those up:

1) For DT, my understanding is that their allocation is this size due to
part of their deployment plan/technology.
    (multiple /48's per site, one per particular technology in use - video,
voice, intertubes, on-demand-video, something...7/site I believe was their
target)

2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around
attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite as
the transition technology in use.
   (map the customer to not a /128 in the ds-lite, but a /48)


Or one where every currently active ASN, times 100X, needs/justifies a /19?


200 years seems optomistic, 20 years seems easy to imagine surpassing
though. What's the sweet spot?



200 years seems pessimistic to me. Every scenario I run uses ridiculously
profligate assumptions, and usually multiplies those by a few orders of
magnitude. Even extrapolating from your math above, I don’t get less than
2222CE.


ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically
assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen,
in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the
examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is ok to
assume.

A larger point is: "so what?"
we've run a number conversion / renumbering once... we can do it again,
better the second time, right? :) Maybe this next time we'll even plan
based on lessons learned in the v4 -> v6 slog?


Lee




Current thread: