Waste will kill ipv6 too

James R Cutler james.cutler at consultant.com
Thu Dec 28 18:45:54 CST 2017


[Deliberate top post]

All this fear about “waste” killing IPv6 is unwarranted.

It is about time to look at the business aspect of wasting human resources fiddling with micro-optimization. We seem to have have two choices:

A. Keep arguing and complicating management of the IPv6 Internet and wasting human resources ==> more cost. 

B. Deploy IPv6 to end users using the RA/DHCP-PD and the like with the simplest possible templates, e.g., /64+/48 to every edge host/router, no questions asked, thus requiring fewer human resources ==> less cost.

Some major networks have long since adopted choice B.

The pace of technology change makes likely that "Waste will kill ipv6 too” will be a moot issue by any of the time estimates discussed previously. Any prudent business will choose “B”. Any other choice from this list would be a waste of time and money. 

See also “Human Use of Human Beings” by Norbert Weiner. 

	Cutler
	

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo at heliacal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote:
>> Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
>> If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
>> addresses.
> 
> After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why we're back to having to do NAT again, even though we now have a practically endless supply of integers.  If we could have all agreed to just do /64+/48 to every edge host/router, no questions asked, we'd never have to talk about this again.  Playing tetris with addresses had to be done with IPv4 but it's not even remotely a concern with IPv6 - the idea of waste and sizing networks is a chore that doesn't need to be thought about anymore.  As you say, if you have a /64, you could run the entire internet with it, if you really wanted to do the kinds of hacks we've been doing with v4, but the idea is that you don't need to do any of that.
> 
> -Laszlo
> 
>> 
>> On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog at alvarezp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>>>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
>>>>> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
>>>>> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,
>>>>> you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.
>>>> Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the
>>>> exception would be if a router does not support it.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Octavio.
>>> Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the
>>> interfaces.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list