[arin-ppml] Controlling the IPv6 address consumption rate

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> Conserving 4095/4096ths of the address space, well, that's getting
> ridiculous on its face. Especially in light of the need for ridiculous
> wastes of IPv6 like 6rd in order to get IPv6 deployed because the
> vendors of last mile technology managed to get caught with their pants
> down by an event that they had more than a decade of warning was
> coming.

Let's not forget that all of the 6RD allocations are intended to be
temporary so it is not really waste. In fact, it is a buffer pool of
addresses that is being conserved for future use after 6RD fades into
black and native IPv6 is everywhere. 


> served would get a /20 or in extreme cases, maybe a /16.

Maybe *A* /16. Look at the IPv4 world where the slash notation
refers to the same fraction of the total number space. A large
ISP would get many / 16 allocations every year.

> This would mean that we consume a total of 3.5 /16s to number the
> entire existing internet according to my suggested way of numbering
> things.

It would be nice to see this kind of analysis displayed in a graphic
way. I continually see people having difficulty grasping what large numbers
mean, both on their own and as the denominator of a fraction. But I
think that a graphical portrayal would go a long way to helping
everybody understand what we are really working with in IPv6.

> I'm willing to set aside a few other /16s for 6rd to be deployed
> temporarily (~5-10 years, hopefully), so long as they are done in such
> a way that a community decision to deprecate them and reclaim them is
> enforceable. (specific prefixes which can be filtered without harming
> native deployments).

Yes.

> Since we've already given each RIR a /12 to start off with and we still
> have 506 /12s left in the /3 from which we are allocating, I think
> we're OK.

And yes again.


--Michael Dillon