[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 and embedded systems was: Re: 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Yannis Nikolopoulos
dez at otenet.gr
Sun Oct 27 20:27:36 CET 2013
Hello, On 10/27/2013 08:20 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: > Hi Yannis and list, > > Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez at otenet.gr> writes: > >> On 10/27/2013 09:54 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: >>> Hi Roger and list, >>> >>> On Fri, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Oct 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand >>>> <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote: >>>> What I wouldn't want to see however is that some big player gets >>>> some extra address space because they wasted their existing >>>> one. Once that happens, everyone will demand the same. >> that's the second time I read this in this thread. Why would this >> happen? All allocations are subject to RIR policy > yes, but policies can be circumvented, lobbied out of the way or > overridden by legislation, as was effectively the case with the > Nortel/Microsoft deal, among others. usually, policy works just fine and by policy I mean something like RIPE-589 which aims to make sure that folks don't just waste their precious space as per your original comment. Nortel/MS case is totally different IMO. > There used to be a policy that IP addresses can't be traded. Take a > look at the recordings from the RIPE meeting last week to see what > happens right now. It's still up to us (RIR members) to change the shape of things to come, although I feel we're off-topic again :) >>>> One way to waste is to give every single customer a /48 when you are >>>> really really big. /56 work just fine really, even for techies like me :) >>> Sorry, but I disagree on that. A /56 is fine for today's requirements, >>> but if this hype about the "Internet of Things" really takes off and you >>> want to put things into different subnets, a /56 may occasionally be a >>> problem even for consumer households. Not today, but think anything >>> from ten to fourty years. >> 40 years from now? Many, more significant changes will probably >> overshadow this. Otherwise, 256 different policies in a home sound >> just fine > According to Bob Kahn with exactly the same reasoning the original 6 bit > addresses in the Arpanet were widely ridiculed; pretty much the same > happened again again when they went straight for 32 bit addresses in > IPv4 (which was pretty much exactly the 40 years I mentioned ago, so > that's where I got that number from). > > If you plan for future networks by today's demands, without taking into > account either some future growth nor some imminent or at least apparent > developments, like the currrent growth of networked embedded systems, > you won't make it through even the next ten years. > > And considering the time it took for IPv6 to take off, even if we > started on developing its successor today, we'd have to live with IPv6 > for another 25 years or more; IPv4 will likely last another five years, > making it a total lifetime of 45 years. We might as well accept that > whatever we do today will haunt us at that long as well. I was merely stating that 40 years from now is an awfully long time to plan for (as far as an addressing plan goes) and to be honest I don't know many people who do. > >>>> * Somewhere else I'm using a /50 on the wire, that also work just fine. >>> Same issue. Yes, at least some implementations support that right now, >>> but you shouldn't rely on that. Additionally, for whoever may have to >>> run that system further later on you set up some ugly surprise that way. >> again, care to elaborate a bit? > [snip] > >> How's a /50 not compliant with RFC 4291? actually, I missed "on the wire" from the original comment :) cheers, Yannis > > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 and embedded systems was: Re: 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]