Waste will kill ipv6 too
marka at isc.org
Fri Dec 29 03:06:14 CST 2017
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 1:54 pm, Ricky Beam <jfbeam at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply it by roughly 4 billion.
> I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
Go ahead and do it. No one is stopping you. Just don’t force it on other including your customers.
>> The routing problem might be real if everyone goes to PI, but I think that’s an unlikely scenario.
> Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it.
It already happens and it isn’t just geeks that have such home networks. People do daisy chain routers today and have been for years. HOMENET routers will auto configure if you just plug them together.
>> Your definition of “amazingly fast is pretty odd... we’ve allocated tiny fractions of 2 /3 prefixes to special uses (multicast, ULA, loopback, unknown, etc.). Beyond that, there’s a /3 delegated to IANA as unicast space for distribution to the RIRs. Of that /3, IANA has delegated a little more than 5 /12s to RIRs. That’s the total of 20 years worth of turkey carving and constitutes well under 1/8th of the address space. Issued. By that measure, we’ve got well over 160 years to worry about runout.
> After 20 years of not using IPv6, that's actually A LOT of carving. And if you look at what's been assigned vs. what's being announced vs. what's actually being used, there's a fantastic amount of waste. But nobody cares because there's plenty of space, and "we'll never use it all." (history says otherwise.)
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG