IPv6 woes - RFC

Wed Sep 22 14:47:34 UTC 2021

Owen DeLong wrote:

>> As mergers of ASes increases the number of announcements and IPv4
>> addresses were allocated a lot earlier than those of IPv6,
>> comparing the current numbers of announcements is not meaningful.
> 
> Mergers of ASes does not increase announcements in IPv4 nearly as
> much as slow-start and repeated expanding requests for additional
> IPv4 space have.

That *was* a factor, when increased number of subscribers
meant more free addresses.

Today, as /24 can afford hundreds of thousands of subscribers
by NAT, only very large retail ISPs need more than one
announcement for IPv4.

>> As a result, size of global routing table will keep increasing
>> unless there are other factors to limit it.
> 
> Sure, but it’s very clear that the rate of increase for IPv6 appears
> to be roughly 1/8th that of IPv4,

It merely means IPv6 is not deployed at all by small ISPs
and multihomed sites.

 > The reality is that IPv4 will never be completely disaggregated into
 > /24s

You are so optimistic.

 > and IPv6 will never be completely disaggregated into /48s, so
 > this is actually meaningless and not predictive in any way.

That IPv6 will be disaggregated into /40 or even /32 is disastrous.

> There is no need for such motivation in IPv6 and better yet,

Then, in a long run, IPv6 will be disaggregated into /32 or /40.

> since
> the two organizations have fully globally unique addresses deployed
> throughout their network, there's no risk of collisions in RFC-1918
> space necessitating large renumbering projects to merge the networks.

You fully misunderstand why NAT is so popular today defeating IPv6.

Even if two organizations are merged, sites of the organizations
are, in general, not merged.

As private address space behind NAT is used by each site
independently, there is no renumbering occur for the private
addresses.

						Masataka Ohta