[arin-ppml] ULA-C and reverse DNS

[David Farmer]

Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> writes:
>     >> But: a) Is the price the same as for GUA?  b) Is the
>     >> needs-requirement the same?  If the answer is YES, then it's not
>     >> a policy. Its status quo.  If the answer is NO, then there are
>     >> those that will argue that this will be used as a run-around
>     >> "routing" policy.
> 
>     David> Are you suggesting that each sub part of an enterprise should
>     David> be able get its own /48?  Are you suggesting there should be
>     David> no limit to the number of /48s a enterprise can get?  It
>     David> sounds to me like that is what you are suggesting.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 1,099,511,627,776   Number of /48s in a /8
>     6,692,030,277   population of planet in 2008.
> 
> That's 164 /48s for every man/woman/child. 

Since I don't see how you are recycling any of the ULA-C in the process 
you are talking about, you need to factor in the death and birth rates 
(using 2008 figures) at 50 years it is about the population.  So that is 
more like half that per person or about 82 per person.

Yes, it is still a lot, but that is only about one /48 per person per 
year of their life or so.  Also, I'm sure some will want and justify 
larger than just a /48 at a time.  That reduces it some more.

> There is no scarcity.  Stop thinking like there is.
> These networks are not connected and would be labelled as such.

There is no scarcity, and I don't think there will ever be one if we can 
be a little rational about how we give things out.  Furthermore, if we 
create a process that recycles numbers that are no longer in use, I'll 
bet we can virtually guarantee that there will never be a scarcity. The 
fact that there is no scarcity, is no excuse to be overly wasteful and 
to not think things through.

I know it is hard for people that work for organizations that think 2 to 
5 year planning horizon are a long time.  But, we should be thinking 
about 50 to 100 year planning horizon on this one.  This is easily 
possible given the size of number space and the complete lack of 
scarcity that exists in IPv6.  There is no reason for the 128bit address 
field to be the driving factor for the next version of IP.  Other issues 
will likely be the driver for a new version of IP in the future, if or 
when that day comes.

Without some kind of limit or back pressure and with the trivial expense 
and justification that I've seen talked about there, it is not hard for 
me to imagine a large number of organizations that could consume 
thousands of ULA-C /48 blocks.  Some kind of back pressure to cause 
multiple groups from within the same organization requesting blocks to 
try to organize their requests and a mechanism that will effect the 
return unused blocks, would go a long way to providing long-term 
sustainability for ULA-C.

So no, there is not a scarcity, but thinking about sustainability now 
will prevent problems in the long-term future.  Also, creating 
sustainable solutions is the best way for the technical community to 
retail control of these issues and not have the political powers of 
governments step in. Please remember that ITU thread.




-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================