Waste will kill ipv6 too
jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Dec 21 17:33:11 CST 2017
Owen DeLong wrote:
> 200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent
> something much more profligate than current policies.
Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to
be avoided. Agreed.
>> 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.
The lesson we are still learning is that the longer entrenched and
successful a numbering scheme is, the more monumental the conversion
And that therefore we should never again do one, as we have every
intention of this scheme vastly exceeding the old one.
More information about the NANOG