[ppml] IPv6>>32

[David Conrad]

On May 10, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps we should have 3 buckets.  The first would be a /56, the  
second a /48, and the third, a /40.  Just for fun, let's call them  
class C, B, and A respectively...  (ironic half :-))

> 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.

I doubt IPv4 will ever run out.  As the unallocated pool of IPv4  
becomes smaller and, as a result, RIRs policies and procedures become  
even more unfair and draconian, people will either (a) migrate to  
IPv6, (b) NAT themselves so they only use a couple IP addresses, or  
(c) obtain the addresses they need from the black/gray market.   
Assuming the market will be allowed to exist (and I'd argue it will  
whether or not the RIRs accept the fact), I suspect a combination of  
(b) and (c) will satisfy the needs of most folks unable/unwilling/ 
unmotivated to do (a).

Speaking only for myself of course, but the way things are going, in  
the end I'm afraid Paul Francis's NUTSS (Nats, Uris, Tunnels, Sip,  
and Stun) "architecture" will win out.  I personally would prefer a  
world in which there was a clear and obvious reason to migrate to end- 
to-end IPv6, e.g., deployable multi-homing and/or trivial  
renumbering, instead of FUD with questionable basis.  However, to  
date, I haven't see that reason.

Rgds,
-drc