Waste will kill ipv6 too

bzs at theworld.com bzs at theworld.com
Thu Dec 28 20:04:53 CST 2017


On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 mel at beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
 >     the difference between thinking in terms of 128
 >     bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions
 > 
 > 
 > I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all
 > for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing
 > structured assignments with 128 bits, and several people here have proven to a
 > mathematical certainty that no technology here today nor on the horizon can
 > exhaust this address space undertake the current allocation rules, *INCLUDING*
 > using /64s for point-to-point circuit.

I think you just did with that paragraph, at least a little.

Allocation rules change over time, or they are "abused" (for some
value of "abused") typically via very sparsely populated block
allocations.

Is the ITU still lobbying for their own large block allocations for
resale/redistribution? That is, to become in effect an RIR (albeit
global not regional)? Or if not currently might they again?

 https://www.linx.net/public-affairs/itu-wants-to-control-ip-address-allocation

The article is a few years old but it's been in the air.

But we shall know in the fullness of time.

-- 
        -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 mailing list