On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in > the future not just traditional routers.
I'm expecting every molecule in every compound to have an embedded IPv6 address which can be read via NFC or some similar technology; and every nanomachine which is pumped into every heart patient to clear out arterial plaque to have one; and every windowblind in every window in every house and apartment and condominium and so forth to have one; etc. And for the vast majority of those addresses to be limited-duration, one-time-use addresses, and for their address space never to be recovered and resubmitted back into the free address pool. Which is one reason why I think that this trend of encouraging overly profligate allocation of IPv6 addresses is ill-considered. We've already seen the folly of /64s for point-to-point links in terms of turning routers and layer-3 switches into sinkholes. Do we really want to turn each and every network, no matter how small, into a 'strange attractor' for potentially significant amounts of irrelevant and undesirable traffic? Yes, I fully understand how huge the IPv6 address space really is - but I also believe that the general conception of what will constitute a node is extremely shortsighted, even by those who are evangelizing the so-called 'Internet of Things', and that a huge proportion of the IPv6 address space will eventually end up being allocated for limited-duration, one-time use in applications such as those cited above. I also believe that we need to drastically expand our projected timescales for the utility of IPv6, while keeping those address-hungry potential applications in mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
