Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Thu Jul 9 02:35:20 UTC 2015

Draw the lines 

-mel via cell

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
> 
> Israel,
> 
> You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. :)
> 
> -mel via cell
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Israel G. Lugo <israel.lugo at lugosys.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 07/09/2015 02:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Here’s the problem… You started at the wrong end and worked in the wrong direction in your planning.
>>> 
>>> [...get larger allocation...]
>>> 
>>> We are now left with only 1,041,888 /20s remaining. You still haven’t put a dent in it.
>> 
>> I am aware of the math, and how it can fit. I will concede that a /20 is
>> sufficient.
>> 
>> Note, however, the difference in orders of magnitude for typical
>> allocations. I realize in ARIN side you've got e.g. Comcast with
>> multiple /20s, but in RIPE that is not so common. My home ISP has 3x
>> /32s. As I said, default ISP/LIR allocation here is from /32 to /29.
>> Yes, shorter prefixes can be justified and obtained, but it's not the norm.
>> 
>> 
>>> It’s not… It’s a great example of how not to plan your address space in IPv6.
>>> 
>>> However, if we repeat the same exercise in the correct direction, not only does each of your end-sites get a /48, you get the /20 you need in order to properly deploy your network. You get lots of space left over, and we still don’t make a dent in the IPv6 free pool. Everyone wins.
>> 
>> You basically just said "get a larger allocation"... Which was my point
>> all along. /32 is not enough, and even /24 could be made much roomier.
>> 
>> Speaking of IPv6's full potential: we're considering 32 subscriptions
>> per client. I've read people thinking of things like IPv6-aware soda
>> cans. Refrigerators. Wearables. Cars and their internal components...
>> You could have the on-board computer talking to the suspension via IPv6,
>> and reporting back to the manufacturer or whatnot.
>> 
>> Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the whole "refrigerators
>> ordering milk bottles" craze, but hey, it may very well become a thing.
>> And other stuff we haven't thought of yet.
>> 
>> My point is: we're changing to a brand new protocol, and only now
>> beginning to scratch its full potential. Yes, everything seems very big
>> right now. Yes, 128 bits can be enough. Even 64 bits could be more than
>> enough. But why limit ourselves? Someone decided (corretly) that 64
>> would be too limiting.
>> 
>> Please don't fall into the usual "you've got more addresses than
>> atoms"... I've heard that, and am not disputing it. I'm not just talking
>> about individual addresses (or /48's).
>> 
>> What I am proposing here, as food for thought, is: what if we had e.g.
>> 192 bits, or 256? For one, we could have much sparser allocations. Heck,
>> we could even go as far as having a bit for each day of the month. What
>> would this be good for? I don't know. Perhaps someone may come up with a
>> use for it.
>>