> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:55 , Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote: > > > On July 15, 2015 at 09:20 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: >> >> There are two ways to waste addresses. One is to allocate them to users who >> don,Abt actually use all of them. >> >> The other is to keep them on the shelf in the free pool until well past the >> useful >> life of the protocol. > > I'd add a third which is segmentation and I think that's a real > threat. That is, assigning large chunks to specific functions by > policy usually in support of technical needs. For example IPv4's > multicast block. Poof, 224/4 gone. Or similar. > > Suddenly it's not 2^N bits it's just N bits. > > My claim is that such segmentation tends to grow over time as people > find good arguments to segment. >
fd00::/8 is already wasted on ULA. fe80::/10 (effectively fe00::/8) is already allocated (somewhat wastefully, as a /64 probably would do the trick) to link local ff00::/8 is already allocated to multicast. That covers multicast and RFC-1918. Are there any other IPv4 segmentations that you can think of? I’m not being snarky… I’m genuinely interested. Given that we came up with 3 total segmentations in IPv4 over the course of 30 years of IPv4 protocol use, which consumed a total of /4(multicast)+/8+/12+/16(RFC-1918)+/16(link local) of IPv4 and 3 /8s of IPv6. Even if we toss 5 more /8s to segmentation over the next 30 years, I think we’re OK, though we would have burned through a /5 at that point in segmentation. I think effectively, we can consider that e000::/3 is essentially set aside for such purposes and we still have 5/8ths of the address space after burning through the current /3 of unicast and a second /3 of unicast while we contemplate a more restrictive policy. Owen > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
