Waste will kill ipv6 too
mel at beckman.org
Thu Dec 28 19:23:29 CST 2017
IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you understand that background.
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:15 AM, "bzs at theworld.com" <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
> Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often
> comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128
> addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion
> (2^32) usable addresses with IPv4.
> We have entire /8s which are sparsely populated so even if they're 24M
> addrs that's of no use to everyone else. Plus other dedicated uses
> like multicast.
> So the problem is segmentation of that 128 bits which makes it look a
> lot scarier because 128 is easy to think about, policy-wise, while
> 2^128 isn't.
> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize
> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with
> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2
> lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.) And some scheme to
> store those addresses in the packet header, possibly IPv4 backwards
> compatible (I know, I know, but here we are!)
> And we'd've been all set, up to 256 bytes (2K bits) of address.
> If wishes were horses...but I think what I'm saying here will be said
> again and again.
> Too many people answering every concern with "do you have any idea how
> many addresses 2^N is?!?!" while drowning out "do you have any idea
> how small that N is?
> -Barry Shein
> Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
More information about the NANOG