gih at apnic.net
Mon May 9 18:17:19 EDT 2005
> > We should at this point be
> > striving to instill some broad confidence in the proposition that we can
> > provide a stable and enduring platform for the world's communications
> > needs.
>By your own numbers changing the H-D policy would get us to centuries in the
>current /3, then folding in the non-technical business desires to
>differentiate based on prefix length we are talking about multiple millennia
>still using the 64/64 split.
Again referring to the presentation at the ARIN VX IPv6 roundtable what was
presented was the theme that a change in the HD ratio and an additional
setting in the subnet space of 56 bits would appear to gain us all some 10
bits (or thereabouts) of address space - which would certainly be an
adequate margin to dispel many lingering levels of discomfort with the
total capacity of the address architecture without imposing undue levels of
imposition or cost on the current and potential user population - these are
after all relatively minor adjustments on the supply side rather than
changes to the address architecture itself.
The 64/64 split is not quite in the same category here, and there is an
impact on the current address architecture. Its true that the original
motivations for this particular aspect of the address architecture have
largely gone away, or at least have been unable to be realized, and the
residual reasons for its adoption are based more in legacy conformance than
in true utility. But here its not quite so clear to me that change is
necessary. As Thomas Narten has said, maybe it would be more practical to
go after the low hanging fruit here, when referring to a preference to look
at the HD Ratio and the subnet size points over looking at the 64 bit split
point between local identification and routing identifiers.
More information about the ARIN-PPML