[ppml] Proposed Policy: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement

[David Conrad]

Hi,

On Sep 8, 2005, at 8:28 AM, Rich Emmings wrote:
> /56 or /48 today doesn't effect things in the long term, as we can  
> adapt
> when needed to those, (or to a /60 or /52) once we have a track record
> and more real world experience.

In theory, true.  In reality, I suspect developers will take  
shortcuts where they can.  If there is a commandment that "thou shalt  
always have /48 or shorter", I suspect retrofitting longer prefixes  
will break lots of embedded stuff.

> There's a lot of space out there.  I don't think many people fathom  
> the
> concepts of 2^128.

And I don't think people understand that IPv6 is not really 2^128.   
Currently, it is between 2^48 and 2^64.  Yes, both are still very,  
very large numbers however the RIRs are, even at this very early  
stage of deployment and before the promises of ubiquitous Internet  
connected devices is anywhere near reality, allocating /19s and /20s  
according to current policies.  Obviously, there are the same number  
of /19s and /20s in IPv6 as there are in IPv4.

> No system will be perfect, we have room to adjust it later, and  
> there's
> enough space out there that we're not at risk of running out over  
> the short
> term.
>
> Perhaps table things for a year, or, until we need to think about  
> issuing
> 4000::/3, and see what real world experiences suggest then?

As a person who has personally and repeatedly experienced first hand  
the repercussions of "historical inequities" in IPv4 addressing, I'm  
not sure it makes sense to repeat that particular IPv4 mistake.

Rgds,
-drc