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

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Emmings [mailto:rich at nic.umass.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: Proposal to amend ARIN 
> IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement
> 
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> >
> 
> Agreed on both, and one of the things I try and remember is 
> to subtract 
> that /64 from the /prefix to get real numbers.  Nevertheless, 
> 2^64 is not 
> only twice 2^32, and even with the reserved space is removed, 
> there's still 
> a very large amount of space out there.  Nevertheless, 
> pending rewrite of 
> autoconfiguration, a /64 is what's gone.

Twice 2^32 is 2^33.  2^64 is 2^32^2


> Even with that, 2^64 is a very large number -- if it was 
> milliseconds, I'm 
> not sure the universe has been around that long.

2^64 = 18446744073709551616 milliseconds
584,942,417 years
Depending on your religion, worms, mulluscs, and arthropods
slithered the earth, or the universe wasn't born yet.


> To some extent, the proposal is a proponent of more free 
> space available for 
> the future, vs more free space available now.  Someone with a /56 may 
> possibly grow to a larger block or set of /56's.  I would 
> intuit that a /48 
> likely means single assignments for most everyone.  Maybe the 0.001% 
> mentioned elsewhere is the difference between /56's and /48's.

I can accept your characterization of the debate.  I think it's
harder to change policy than you do.  I don't think anyone who
needs a /64 will outgrow a /56 within the currently projected 
life of IPv6.

> > 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.
> 
> I've seen that too, however, we're less than 50% on 2000::/3 
> and haven't 
> broached into the other 6 /3's that would be available at 
> some point.  We 
> have more room to make adjustments than with IPv4 space.  If 
> the finite 
> space was just 2000::/3 and were approaching 50%, allocation 
> size would be a 
> more important factor than getting things more set in concrete.

It's easier to loosen the belt than tighten it.  If we try
to restrict things later, late adopters will cry "Foul!" and
it'll be worse than now, since we have a chance to learn from
history, and since this time around people think it's 
important.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying we should give people less
than they need.  I just don't think we need to give them
65,000 times what they need (and nevermind those last 64 bits).

 
> I run into issues with rollout related to "Well, they're 
> still changing 
> things, let's wait"   I'm willing to accept a less than 
> perfect initial 
> system that has room to be moved into a more perfect state at 
> a later date.

Could we at least avoid making the mistakes we already know
about?  


Lee