On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote: >> >>> what is the life expectancy of IPv6? It won't live forever and we >>> can't reasonably expect it too. I understand we don't want run out of >>> addresses in the next 10-40 years but what about 100? 200? 300? >>> >>> We will run out and our decedents will go through re-numbering again. >>> The question becomes what is the life expectancy of IPv6 and does the >>> allocation plan make a reasonable attempt to run out of addresses >>> around the end of the expected life of IPv6. >> >> Well, we know that the human population will stabilise somewhere below >> ten billion by around 2050. The current unicast space provides for about >> 15 trillion /48s. Let's assume that the RIRs and ISPs retain their current >> level of engineering common sense - i.e. the address space will begin to be >> really full when there are about 25% of those /48s being routed... that makes >> 3.75 trillion /48s routed for ten billion people, or 375 /48s per man, woman >> and child. (Or about 25 million /64s if you prefer.) > > It's not the humans that are going to soak up the address space, so it seems > a little misguided to count up the humans a reference for the bounding > properties on growth. That said I think 2000::/3 will last long enough, that > we shouldn't be out rewriting policy anytime soon. >
I disagree. I think current policy in several RIRs (APNIC, especially) is far too conservative and that we do need to rewrite it. That's why I submitted prop-090 which has taken the feedback I received into account and become prop-098. Owen
