Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

[James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com>]

[Deliberate top post]

All this fear about “waste” killing IPv6 is unwarranted.

It is about time to look at the business aspect of wasting human resources fiddling with micro-optimization. We seem to 
have have two choices:

A. Keep arguing and complicating management of the IPv6 Internet and wasting human resources ==> more cost. 

B. Deploy IPv6 to end users using the RA/DHCP-PD and the like with the simplest possible templates, e.g., /64+/48 to 
every edge host/router, no questions asked, thus requiring fewer human resources ==> less cost.

Some major networks have long since adopted choice B.

The pace of technology change makes likely that "Waste will kill ipv6 too” will be a moot issue by any of the time 
estimates discussed previously. Any prudent business will choose “B”. Any other choice from this list would be a waste 
of time and money. 

See also “Human Use of Human Beings” by Norbert Weiner. 

        Cutler
        

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo () heliacal net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote:
> > Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
> > If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
> > addresses.
>
> After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why we're back to having to do NAT again, even 
> though we now have a practically endless supply of integers.  If we could have all agreed to just do /64+/48 to every 
> edge host/router, no questions asked, we'd never have to talk about this again.  Playing tetris with addresses had to 
> be done with IPv4 but it's not even remotely a concern with IPv6 - the idea of waste and sizing networks is a chore 
> that doesn't need to be thought about anymore.  As you say, if you have a /64, you could run the entire internet with 
> it, if you really wanted to do the kinds of hacks we've been doing with v4, but the idea is that you don't need to do 
> any of that.
>
> -Laszlo
>
> > On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog () alvarezp org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
> > > > > On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> > > > > Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
> > > > > link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
> > > > > due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,
> > > > > you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.
> > > > Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the
> > > > exception would be if a router does not support it.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Octavio.
> > > Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the
> > > interfaces.
> > >
> > > Owen