Waste will kill ipv6 too

Thu Dec 28 21:17:19 UTC 2017

Barry,

The absence of data is not data :)

 -mel beckman

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:05 PM, "bzs at theworld.com" <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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*