Owen, By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies that for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. History cuts both ways.
I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spanking new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable caution. We can always be more generous later. -mel beckman > On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > 30 years ago, if you’d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the internet > 30 years > ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. > > If you asked anyone 30 years ago “will 4 billion internet addresses be enough > if everyone > ends up using the internet?”, they all would have told you “no way.”. > > I will again repeat… Let’s try liberal allocations until we use up the first > /3. I bet we don’t > finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6. > > If I’m wrong and we burn through the first /3 while I am still alive, I will > happily help you > get more restrictive policy for the remaining 3/4 of the IPv6 address space > while we > continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed. > > Owen > > >> On Jul 14, 2015, at 06:23 , George Metz <george.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago >> if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addresses in >> anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. >> That's what's really got most of the people who want (dare I say more sane?) >> more restrictive allocations to be the default concerned; 30 years ago the >> math for how long IPv4 would last would have been compelling as well, which >> is why we have the entire Class E block just unusable and large blocks of IP >> address space that people were handed for no particular reason than it >> sounded like a good idea at the time. >> >> 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. >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com >> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >> How so? >> >> There are 8192 /16s in the current /3. >> >> ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming 32 >> end-sites per person >> can’t really be all that many… >> >> >> 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP. >> >> 7,000,000,000 * 32 = 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 = 1,792 total /16s >> consumed. >> >> Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I’m >> still alive >> when we do, I’ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be enacted >> while we >> burn through the second /3. That’ll still leave us 75% of the address space >> to work >> with on that new policy. >> >> If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let’s >> talk about >> an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it’s partner /9 >> with an >> RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT >> fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off to >> waste. >> >> Yeah, I’m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately justify a /16. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com >>> <mailto:jmai...@ttec.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> JimBob’s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16 >>> >>> Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space. >> >> >
