legacy /8

Sat Apr 3 01:36:56 UTC 2010

On 03/04/10 00:09 +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Sigh... Guess you missed the last several go-arounds of
>> 
>> Running out of IPv4 will create some hardships. That cannot be avoided.
>
>	we won't run out, we won't exaust, we are -NOT- killing the last tuna.
>	what we are doing is roughly what was anticipated in RFC 2050, we will
>	get more efficent utilization of all the space.

That statement becomes less truthy when more realistic definitions of 'we'
are used.

I'd suggest that attempts to stretch v4 addresses is going to fall over on
its side, for large segments of we. Address exchanges on the free market,
and RIR reclamation will certainly be sufficient for other large segments.

However, there will be a point in the next 3-5 years in which neither of
these methods will be able to keep up with the tide of technological
advancement.

>> Even if we were to reclaim the supposed unused legacy /8s, we'd still
>> only extend the date of IPv4 runout by a few months.
>
>	wrong analogy.  there won't be "green field" space - but there will
>	still be lots to go around... for legacy style use (e.g. the Internet
>	as we know it today)  --  want to do something different? then use IPv6.

I already feel like a dinosaur sitting in front of my desktop, with a
keyboard.

The Internet as we know it today only has 2-3 years of v4 address supply
left. The more we stretch address usage, the more we create something that
does not resemble the Internet as we know it today.

>> The amount of effort required to reclaim those few IPv4 addresses would
>> vastly exceed the return on that effort. Far better for that effort to be
>> directed towards the addition of IPv6 capabilities to existing IPv4
>> deployments so as to minimize the impact of IPv4 exhaustion.
>
>	here we disagree.  Im all in favor of demonstrating 85% utilization
>	of the IPv4 address pool before handing out new address space.

-- 
Dan White