[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:32 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6>>32
> 
> 
> > People
> > need a way to switch providers without concern that they 
> will have to
> change
> > their subnet plan.
> 
> Some people will switch providers on a daily basis. Maybe 
> even more than once per day. Consider a Vehicle Area Network 
> installed in a refrigerated van filled with crates of 
> vegetables. Each vegetable crate has it's own 
> subnet. The refrigeration systems have several subnets for 
> motors, motor control, coolant monitoring, circulation 
> control. Then there are the 
> various
> normal systems found in any vehicle, the driver's own Personal Area 
> Network
> and his links into the corporate VPN. This will be a complex 
> subnet plan more complex than found in most small businesses 
> today. This VAN needs to be able to roam from one provider to 
> another without resubnetting and in the evening when it is 
> parked in the company facility, again, it needs to fit in as 
> a node in the vast corporate network.

What size assignment do you advocate for a produce crate?  Please
extrapolate the lifetime of IPv6 if consumables get subnets.


> > In any case it is wrong for an ISP to assume that the device at the 
> > end
> of a
> > particular link is an endpoint handset.
> 
> I think this is the fundamental challenge of networking in 
> this century. The current IPv4 network is rather small and 
> can often be visualized as a hierarchy from Tier1 to provider 
> core to pop to end site. Today this is a workable 
> simplification in many instances. But the small IPv4 
> networks
> common today will be dwarfed by the scale and complexity of 
> networks 50 years from now. In 50 years, it will be difficult 
> to identify end-sites because many traditional end-sites will 
> become gateways to other networks 
> at least part of the time.

What kind of addressing policy and routing system would you propose
to scale to that kind of network?

> 
> > FUD simply states that we are wasting space because we are 
> allocating
> more
> > than we have in the past.
> 
> I think we are allocating less than in the past. In IPv4 we give 
> a new ISP 20 bits of address space. In IPv6 we give him 32 
> bits in his prefix. Therefore the IPv6 ISP is getting a much 
> smaller fraction of the total address space than the IPv4 
> ISP. These people who talk about waste simply do not 
> understand IPv6 fundamentals. Either that, or their 
> definition of "waste" doesn't match what I read in the dictionary.

A smaller fraction for ISPs, but as you point out, there are many
different kinds of entities that could get assignments.  It seems to
me that most arguments assume a higher rate of growth than the 
current curve.

Lee

> 
> --Michael Dillon
>