Waste will kill ipv6 too
owen at delong.com
Thu Dec 21 17:00:17 CST 2017
> ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically
> assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen,
> in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the
> examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is ok to
200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent
something much more profligate than current policies.
> A larger point is: "so what?”
> we've run a number conversion / renumbering once... we can do it again,
> better the second time, right? :) Maybe this next time we'll even plan
> based on lessons learned in the v4 -> v6 slog?
Technically, we’ve run one, we’re running a second one now, and yeah,
hopefully lessons learned can play a part.
Of course this also ignores the third transition which included a numbering
transition as enterprises went from running everything else (x.25, vines,
IPX, DECNET, AppleTalk, etc.) to IP.
More information about the NANOG