alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue May 10 14:06:02 EDT 2005
Bill Darte wrote:
> But is 'misery' conservation the appropriate contrasting element. Is it
> that anything less than 65K subnets of 64 bits is 'miserly' or is the
> argument that that anything less may cause 'bureaucracy of address
> administration' when sites run out of addresses and have to come back?
Stating that the allocation system will run out of addresses unless we
provide for more than 10^14 customer demarcation points is being miserly.
Yes there is loss in the system, but minimizing the pain in allocations is
being directly traded against the pain in provider flexibility for the local
network manager, and/or pain at the developer/innovator level in terms of
available options. Until someone shows that they can actually efficiently
consume 10^14 prefixes there is no reason to even consider changing the /48
issue. So far all we have is a presentation from Geoff & David that shows we
know how to waste that much space through the currently generous HD ratio.
Change that to a more appropriate value.
To be clear I am not fixated on /48 because there are business interests
overlaying this space that will want other values. What we need are a small
number of clear bucket sizes that allow people to move between providers
without having to rebuild there subnet structure. The only comment I have
received on my draft so far is that we probably need to add /44 for very
I am opposed to the nonsense of 'IPv6 will never be real' because it doesn't
fit an individual's perspective of perfection. IPv4 will run out of space
before most people are ready to move, if for no other reason than they are
being lulled into a state of unconsciousness by those who refuse to accept
that change is inevitable.
More information about the ARIN-PPML