[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Tony Hain]

Azinger, Marla wrote:
> ...
> Lack of imagination is not a problem here...but lack of conservation and
> us of "Private IP Addresses" might be...not to mention this example above
> entertwines several distinct issues into one ball.   Specifically, porting
> of IP Address space and lack of conservation.
> 
> For this response...I am only addressing the later..."lack of
> conservation".
> 
> I understand the whole concept of thinking into the future and what we
> might use "Public IP Addresses" for...but I have noticed a trend that when
> these "possibilities" are brought up...it seems to lack someone asking
> whether its "really a need" or just a "because I can" use of IP addresses.
> It would be beneficial for everyone to consider the difference between
> "what we can do and whether we need or should do".  And if we are
> determined to do it...why not factor in conservation and use of "Private
> IP Addresses"?
> 
> Maybe its just how I interpret things...but it just seems that when we
> "look to the future"...sometimes it appears "conservation" is replaced
> with "because I can".

>From another perspective, 'aggressive conservation' == 'because I can'.
There needs to be a balance here and the current balance point is set to
meet the original goals for the protocol. We can always change the goals
after the fact, but that will cause confusion, and confusion always results
in delay. I can already hear the screams about lack of need being the delay,
so save the bits. It is unfortunate but we are likely to reach a crisis
before people wake up, and then the move will be painful. In any case
reasonable stewardship allows for innovation as well as managing resources
for the long term. If the 'we will run out' perspective of those who want to
micro-manage end side allocations were applied to oil we would have strict
rationing, because as we all know oil is a finite resource and we have to
make sure it is available 1200 years from now...

As far as private addresses go, yes we should be using them for private
purposes. IPv6 implementations specifically expect to have multiple
addresses simultaneously so they can use private addresses for local
functions while public addresses are available for public functions. These
addresses are not necessarily for address conservation, but would have that
effect for those organizations that have a large number of devices that will
never be publicly routed (like the management functions on DOCSIS 3
equipment). They also allow vehicles to move between docking points without
disrupting internal communications. Yes they exist and should be used, but
they are not going to make a significant difference in address consumption.

Tony