Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Tue Jul 14 19:56:58 UTC 2015

I expect to be actively involved at least 20 more years.  If I'm not around, thats 160 years to runout. I'm betting the protocol can't live that long for other reasons. 

Owen

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:35, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
> 
> I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential subscribers. Neither do I mind if they give out /56s. That still gives every residential customer 256 /64 subnets. 
> 
> I don't see this as something that needs to become a standard. Those end-users who want more can ask for more fro their ISP whenever the need arises. If there is a market for selling those larger prefixes to end users, that's free enterprise, which I also support. 
> 
> I don't think it's wise to delegate by rule or convention that the entire first 1/8th of IPv6 space should be delegated in /48s. You see this as not a huge deal. To me, 12.5% is a huge deal.
> 
> I appreciate your offer to give your services away for free to remedy any problems the /3 bolus creates. But as history has shown, neither of us is likely to be in circulation -- or even alive -- when a problem would occur.  
> 
> -mel beckman
> 
>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> You don’t think holding nearly 7/8ths of the address space in reserve for a future addressing policy is adequate judiciuosness?
>> 
>> The IPv4 /8s constituted 1/2 of the address space. The /16s another 1/4, and the /24s an additional 1/8th at the time.
>> Overall, that was 7/8ths of the address space assigned to unicast and 9/16ths allocated if you included multicast.
>> 
>> In IPv6, we have 1/8th set aside for unicast, 1/256th for multicast, 1/256th for ULA, 1/1024th for link-local, and
>> a couple of infinitesimal fractions set aside for other things like localhost, IPV6_ADDR_ANY, etc.
>> 
>> As I said, let’s be liberal as designed with the first /3. If I’m wrong and you can prove it in my remaining lifetime, I will happily
>> help you develop more restrictive allocation policy for the remaining 3/4 while the second /3 is used to continue growing the
>> IPv6 internet.
>> 
>> Whatever unexpected thing causes us to finish off the first /3 likely won’t burn through the second /3 before we can
>> respond with new policy. We still have almost 3/4 of the address space available for more restrictive allocations.
>> 
>> Frankly, I bet about 1/8th of the IPv4 address space probably is in the hands of the top 64 organizations. Maybe more.
>> 
>> In this case, 1/8th of the address space will more than cover the entire known need many many many times over, even
>> with very liberal allocations.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:13 , Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Owen,
>>> 
>>> By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies that for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. History cuts both ways. 
>>> 
>>> I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spanking new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable caution. 
>>> 
>>> We can always be more generous later. 
>>> 
>>> -mel beckman
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 30 years ago, if you’d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the internet 30 years
>>>> ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad.
>>>> 
>>>> If you asked anyone 30 years ago “will 4 billion internet addresses be enough if everyone
>>>> ends up using the internet?”, they all would have told you “no way.”.
>>>> 
>>>> I will again repeat… Let’s try liberal allocations until we use up the first /3. I bet we don’t
>>>> finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6.
>>>> 
>>>> If I’m wrong and we burn through the first /3 while I am still alive, I will happily help you
>>>> get more restrictive policy for the remaining 3/4 of the IPv6 address space while we
>>>> continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 06:23 , George Metz <george.metz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addresses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. That's what's really got most of the people who want (dare I say more sane?) more restrictive allocations to be the default concerned; 30 years ago the math for how long IPv4 would last would have been compelling as well, which is why we have the entire Class E block just unusable and large blocks of IP address space that people were handed for no particular reason than it sounded like a good idea at the time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner than one might expect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> How so?
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are 8192 /16s in the current /3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming 32 end-sites per person
>>>>> can’t really be all that many…
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7,000,000,000 * 32 = 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 = 1,792 total /16s consumed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I’m still alive
>>>>> when we do, I’ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be enacted while we
>>>>> burn through the second /3. That’ll still leave us 75% of the address space to work
>>>>> with on that new policy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let’s talk about
>>>>> an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it’s partner /9 with an
>>>>> RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT
>>>>> fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off to
>>>>> waste.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, I’m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately justify a /16.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com <mailto:jmaimon at ttec.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>>> JimBob’s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.
>> 