[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019
hannigan at gmail.com
Sat Jan 4 17:04:48 EST 2020
This all seems silly to me. #IMHO, IPv4 policy should be geared only mostly
assuaging operators to get to v6. Total exhaustion is a part of that.
Talking about v6 exhaustion is probably better suited for the IETF. Either
way, we’ll all be dead if/when it happens and it is not unreasonable to
avoid worrying about a future that is unknown. Do we need to be
responsible? Yes. Do we need to worry about every little detail for 2050?
We’re operating networks today with typically three to five year horizons.
Let conditions on the ground do their job.
YMMV, and warm regards,
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 15:41 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
> I understand that there might have been some poor choices made with IPv6
> in regard to address allocation that might lead to a future exhaust. The
> main one is the 64 bit network and 64 bit host decision, considering that
> it was based on 48 bit ethernet OUI's. I think it should have been 80 bits
> of network and 48 bits of host instead. Even in the largest of networks,
> 48 bits is clearly overkill. Having the current /64 is clearly excessive.
> Other decisions like giving every node a /48 also add to the greater
> possibility of exhaust at some future time. Many players have already
> decided to assign less than a /48 to their customers by default.
> However, unlike the situation of IPv4, there is still plenty of time to
> correct this. Currently only 1/16 of the address space is currently used
> for global addresses. When it comes time to assign the next 1/16 of
> space, we could always tighten up the standards, leading to vastly more
> addresses being available per 1/16 block. Adoption of an 80/48 split by
> existing players would vastly expand their holdings. Also, adoption of
> only providing a /48 upon request and defaulting to /56 or /60 can also
> vastly expand holdings as well.
> We still have plenty of time while only 1/16 of the address space is being
> used to address being more conservative in the future.
> Does anyone know what is the utilization rate of 2000::/3 is or where this
> data is being tracked?
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> > In message <alpine.LRH.2.21.2001031911040.742 at bigone.uneedus.com>,
> > hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> >> [IPv6] also brings RIR's
> >> back to their original record keeping role, without having to police the
> >> number of addresses that a member needs.
> > I am not persuaded that this will be the case. When IPv4 was first
> > promulgated, I do believe that just about everyone felt that there
> > was no way in hell that "the Internet" such as it was, or such as it
> > might become, could ever use up 4 billion addresses. Now admittedly,
> > things -are- rather different with IPv6, where the number of addreses
> > is a lot closer to the number of elementary particles in the Universe,
> > but I do think it is unwise to ever assume that there are any practical
> > limits on man's ability and/or willingness to waste stuff. In other
> > words, I think that some amount of thoughtful husbandry of the resource
> > will always be needed.
> > Regards,
> > rfg
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML