You don’t think holding nearly 7/8ths of the address space in reserve for a future addressing policy is adequate judiciuosness?
The IPv4 /8s constituted 1/2 of the address space. The /16s another 1/4, and the /24s an additional 1/8th at the time. Overall, that was 7/8ths of the address space assigned to unicast and 9/16ths allocated if you included multicast. In IPv6, we have 1/8th set aside for unicast, 1/256th for multicast, 1/256th for ULA, 1/1024th for link-local, and a couple of infinitesimal fractions set aside for other things like localhost, IPV6_ADDR_ANY, etc. As I said, let’s be liberal as designed with the first /3. If I’m wrong and you can prove it in my remaining lifetime, I will happily help you develop more restrictive allocation policy for the remaining 3/4 while the second /3 is used to continue growing the IPv6 internet. Whatever unexpected thing causes us to finish off the first /3 likely won’t burn through the second /3 before we can respond with new policy. We still have almost 3/4 of the address space available for more restrictive allocations. Frankly, I bet about 1/8th of the IPv4 address space probably is in the hands of the top 64 organizations. Maybe more. In this case, 1/8th of the address space will more than cover the entire known need many many many times over, even with very liberal allocations. Owen > On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:13 , Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: > > 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. >>> >>> >>
