Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 17, 2015, at 09:17 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to >>> enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of >>

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:54:37 -0400, Joe Maimon said: > This objection hinges on the assumption that if there is even ONE host > on the network that will not accept that address, then the entire effort > was a waste. "if there's even ONE host" isn't the assertion, so do us a favor and don't claim

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Dictatorship enabled by consensus == Democratic Republic, Welcome to America! On 7/17/15 12:17 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to enable people to try and make s

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of the way. Sometimes good leadership is knowing when to say “not just no, but

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Baldur Norddahl wrote: On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon wrote: All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of the way. If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RF

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Lee Howard wrote: > > > On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote: > >> >> >> Lee Howard wrote: >>> >>> So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class >>> E? >>> That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody >>> can write such a draft assignin

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 9:10 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >>> It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, >>> since this >>> is the reason it isn't in IPv4. >> >> There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge >> so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the In

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > John Levine wrote: >>> Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I >>> advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they >>> want/can. > > > >> >> But you're asking other people to spend the

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote: > > >Lee Howard wrote: >> >> So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class >>E? >> That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody >> can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to >

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:29:48 -0400, Joe Maimon said: > All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along > to enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out > of the way. The problem is that if everybody gets out of the way and doesn't follow, your clas

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 17 July 2015 at 00:29, Joe Maimon wrote: > All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to > enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of > the way. > If I understand correctly you want someone (not you) to write a RFC that changes the wor

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

John Levine wrote: Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they want/can. But you're asking other people to spend their own time and money to change their equipment to handle class E. For reasons

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>Just as nobody is preventing you from going ipv6 only right now, I >advocate against hindering anybody going ipv4 only for as long as they >want/can. Nobody's hindering you. You can get NAT boxes of all shapes and sizes. If you want to mess around with class E addresses on your own network, g

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message <55a812a1.6020...@ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes: > > > Jacques Latour wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Dual stack is where we need to go 'now', but we need to think about the fut > ure where we run an IPv6 only stack and stop thinking how to leverage, extend > , expand and create ugly IPv4 solut

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Lee Howard wrote: I don¹t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don¹t see any efforts. There were efforts in the past. I am highlighting our malfeasance as a community in our past behavior. I have little hope of it changing in the future, but I can vent about it every couple years or so.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Jacques Latour wrote: Hi, Dual stack is where we need to go 'now', but we need to think about the future where we run an IPv6 only stack and stop thinking how to leverage, extend, expand and create ugly IPv4 solutions. IPv4 is done; it served its purpose well, thank you. We need a date wher

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon" wrote: > > >To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the >rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and >refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover >resources. I don

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Yeah wow 127/8, that one always amazed me, 16M addrs because it was computationally cheap to test for ((0x7f & addr) == 0x7f). I wonder what are the most 127.* addrs ever used by one site? I know there are some schemes which blackhole to 127.0.0.n incrementing n so the number of hits on each blac

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

mon > Sent: July-16-15 11:24 AM > To: Doug Barton; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion > > > > Doug Barton wrote: > > > > > Joe, > > > > In this post, and in your many other posts today, you seem to be > > asser

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Doug Barton wrote: Joe, In this post, and in your many other posts today, you seem to be asserting that this would work if "$THEY" would just get out of the way, and let it work. You've also said explicitly that you believe that this is an example of top-down dictates. I know you may find th

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:13:52PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > Because by doing so, you guarantee failure. I'll take personal responsibility for the class E space not working if that makes you feel better. I suspect it would be easier to get 0.1.0.0-0.255.255.255 to work than 240-2

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 15/Jul/15 17:49, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge > so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet. Some hardware does not support uRPF, for example. ACL

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Joe Maimon wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > > This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough > embedded logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense. > > Enough to scuttle all previous drafts. > > > linux > > a little google comes up with this > > http://www.g

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 4:45 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: Doug Barton wrote: On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents. Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the good old days." So in t

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 7/15/2015 6:00 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove >> something between one if statement or slightly more and an entire >> protocol stack that when active fundamentally changes the host >>

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Are you really equating an incremental silent update to remove something between one if statement or slightly more and an entire protocol stack that when active fundamentally changes the host networking behavior? Yeah. On the devices I have, there's no practical difference between a one line

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 14:43 , Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” >> when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots >> of people have said “what th

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 16:45 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody >>> other then the ipv6 adherents. >> >> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or tw

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Jared Mauch wrote: This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough embedded logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense. Enough to scuttle all previous drafts. linux a little google comes up with this http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/86

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to make it so? Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it with use at your own risk status? Even now? No. The point is it's been wired into e

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 4:35 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > At this point, you are running the risk of conflating your goals with > your technical objections to the goals of others. And this has always > been the real underlying issue. My goal in an operational capacity is to continue to hold onto the quality and

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon wrote: I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents. But it wouldn’t be right now. It would be after everyone put lots of effort into updating lots of systems so that they

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody >>> other then the ipv6 adherents. >> >> Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or t

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message <55a6ee2b.5040...@ttec.com>, Joe Maimon writes: > joel jaeggli wrote: > > On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> > >> The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the > >> community who created it. > > > > joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a > > Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 07/15/2015 02:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.” That 640k was the

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

John Levine wrote: I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents. It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't. Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner t

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Doug Barton wrote: On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents. Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Ricky Beam wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space. There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid allocation policies. True. However, are you making th

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

joel jaeggli wrote: On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: The jury is still out on class E, but the verdict is in for the community who created it. joel@ubuntu:~$ uname -a Linux ubuntu 3.8.0-44-generic #66~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 15 04:01:04 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux joe

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:34:13 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: That covers multicast and RFC-1918. Are there any other IPv4 segmentations that you can think of? ... Given that we came up with 3 total segmentations in IPv4 over the course #1-3,#4 RFC-1918 is 3 "segments" and we recently added a 4th

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited it to 640k.”

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:55 , Barry Shein 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,Ab€™t actually use all of them. >> >> The other is to keep them on the shelf in the f

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 13:23 , Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space. >>> >>> There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with >>> stupid a

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 1:48 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:23:36 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said: What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were they thinking". However, this statement doesn't provide any actual guidance, as it's potentially equally applicab

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:23:36 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said: > What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were > they thinking". However, this statement doesn't provide any actual guidance, as it's potentially equally applicable to the "give each end customer a /48" crew and t

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

George Metz wrote: > > snip > > Split the difference, go with a /52 > >> > > > > That's not splitting the difference. :) A /56 is half way between a > > /48 and a /64. That's 256 /64s, for those keeping score at home. > > > > It's splitting the difference between a /56 and a /48. I can't imagin

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space. There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid allocation policies. True. However, are you making the argument that any

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 12:43 PM, George Metz wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>> wrote: On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote: Snip! Also, as Owen pointed out, the original concept for IPv6 networking was a 64 bit address space all along. The "e

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> > I wasn't intending yourself as the recipient keep in mind. However, IS > their premise wrong? Is prudence looking at incomprehensible numbers and > saying "we're so unlikely to run out that it just doesn't matter" or is > prudence "Well, we have no idea what's coming, so let's be a little less

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote: > >> >> Snip! > Also, as Owen pointed out, the original concept for IPv6 networking was a > 64 bit address space all along. The "extra" (or some would say, "wasted") > 64 bits were tacked on later. > >

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:32 , David Conrad wrote: > > Hi, > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer wrote: >> Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US >> organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all >> of Vietnam got one /26. > > IIRC (I was runni

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> In message >> > >> We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly >> to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone. > > That is a self fulfilling prophecy. > > I suspect a 16 /8

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody >other then the ipv6 adherents. It would, if the software supported it. But it doesn't. Is there any reason to think the world would update its TCP stacks to handle those extra IPv4 addresses any sooner than it'd update its s

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Hi, On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US > organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all > of Vietnam got one /26. IIRC (I was running APNIC at the time), when the first organization from Vietnam app

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adherents. Globally we were burning through about a /8 every month or two in "the good old days." So in the best case scenario we'd get 32 more months of easy to ge

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 10:24 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> In message >> > >> We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly >> to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone. > > That is a self fulfilling prophecy. > > I suspect a 16 /8 right about now

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 8:20 AM, George Metz wrote: Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you for the compliment. :) I call them like I see them. :) The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". Ok, good news so far. :) The longer answer is "it depends on

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mark Andrews wrote: In message We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone. That is a self fulfilling prophecy. I suspect a 16 /8 right about now would be very welcome for everybody other then the ipv6 adhe

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 08:20 , George Metz wrote: > > Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you > for the compliment. :) > > The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". The longer > answer is "it depends on what you consider the wildest dreams". >

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this is the reason it isn't in IPv4. There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet. In IPv4 systems, the problem is (so I have been to

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 15, 2015, at 03:43 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a >> modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones >> probably need /16 or even /12 in so

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/2015 8:25 AM, John Levine wrote: It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this is the reason it isn't in IPv4. Too bad the hazards of allowing people to use arbitrary source addresses weren't known when IPv6 was designed. Matthew Kaufman

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 15 Jul 2015 15:25:05 -, "John Levine" said: > It would be nice if it were possible to implement BCP 38 in IPv6, since this > is the reason it isn't in IPv4. There isn't any technical reason that an organization can't fix its edge so it doesn't urinate bad IPv6 traffic all over the Internet

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>Same way it happens today. Business starts out small, uses IP space from >their single ISP. Couple years later, they're bigger and want to dual-home >for better uptime or other reasons. Unless there is something stopping them >from advertising their ISP 'A' space out to ISP 'B' in IPv6 land, we

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you for the compliment. :) The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". The longer answer is "it depends on what you consider the wildest dreams". There's a couple of factors playing in. First, look at every /64

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/15/15 3:43 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a >> modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones >> probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases. >> >

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

-Original Message- From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:50 PM To: Chuck Church Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion >This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space? Same way it happens today.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 15 July 2015 at 01:34, Owen DeLong wrote: > For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a > modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones > probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases. > What is the definition of a modest and a large ISP?

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> Is a techno-colonialiasm the end result of some sort of musical/military > fetish? http://psg.com/on-technocolonialism.html > On reflection I think I was wrong about the /26 anyway. quite. and your dates are fuzzy too. but not really relevant. randy

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 21:15 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > The big difference between IPv4 initial policies and IPv6 initial > > policies is that with IPv4 there were no policies to speak of in the > > early days. Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US > > organisations ended up w

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> the pre netsol allocations by sri, isc usc, sigh

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> The big difference between IPv4 initial policies and IPv6 initial > policies is that with IPv4 there were no policies to speak of in the > early days. Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US > organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all > of Vietnam

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 09:23 -0400, George Metz wrote: > 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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > IPv6 is not the last protocol known to mankind. IF it burns out in 400-500 > years, something will have gone terribly wrong, because newer ideas about > networking will have been squashed along the way. 64 bits for both hosts and > routing was ove

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message , George Metz writes: > 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. I did that math ~30 years

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/14/15 6:23 AM, George Metz wrote: 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. I've been t

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases. Owen On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:53, John R. Levine wrote: >> We're talking about end user assignments

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message <002f01d0be76$52b0c800$f8125800$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own > PI space? > > Chuck For the home dual PA prefixes + ULA with CPE routers that support source and destination based routing automatically

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

og-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:50 PM > To: Chuck Church > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion > >> What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own >> PI space? > > This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space? > > R's, > John

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

bhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669 -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:50 PM To: Chuck Church Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion > What about dual-homed customers? Or are

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own PI space? This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space? R's, John

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ok. Two RIB entries for Comcast. Your argument doesn't scale. -mel via cell On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:53 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu<mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>" mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:45

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Ok. Two RIB entries for Comcast. Your argument doesn't scale. -mel via cell On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:53 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:45:42 -, Mel Beckman said: We're talking about end user assignm

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

I expect to be actively involved at least 20 more years. If I'm not around, thats 160 years to runout. I'm betting the protocol can't live that long for other reasons. Owen > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:35, Mel Beckman wrote: > > I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential sub

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:45:42 -, Mel Beckman said: > We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. Do the math for how big a chunk Comcast needs, assuming they give each residential customer a /60, or a /56, or a /48. If their first chunk was sized based on ubiqui

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. An ISP's /32 is likely the only entry one needs in the FIB. -mel beckman > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" > wrote: > > On 14 Jul 2015 18:44:25 -, "John Levine" said: > >> routers does n

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. An ISP's /32 is likely the only entry one needs in the FIB. In that case, why should anyone care how the ISP assigns space to its customers? R's, John

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 14 Jul 2015 18:44:25 -, "John Levine" said: > routers does not. The right way to allocate v6 space is the first > time someone asks for some, give them as much as they'll ever need. > If you give them less and they have to come back for more later, > you've wasted a router slot. Amen. In

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential subscribers. Neither do I mind if they give out /56s. That still gives every residential customer 256 /64 subnets. I don't see this as something that needs to become a standard. Those end-users who want more can ask for more fro their

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mel Beckman 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? Actually 30 years ago it was very difficult to get a /8 even for a US Gov organization. I have firsthand experience with being r

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>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. It's optimizing for the wrong thing. While the supply of IPv6 addresses exceeds any plausible demand, the supply of route slots in routers does not

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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 ass

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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 tol

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:50 , John Curran wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman > mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote: > > This is a side issue, but I'm surprised ARIN is still advertising incorrect > information in the table. > ... > Are you saying that there is no way to get an IP

Re: Also Facebook (was: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:58:22PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:14:16 -0400, John Curran wrote: > >If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent > >holes... > > They are mere statistics. They say only what they say without any measured > margin of er

  1   2   3   >