[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Monday 04 April 2005 23:25, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:17:04AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > and we once thought 32 bits of address should be enough for ever
>
> *I* wasn't part of that "we" - and the math is a *little* bit different
> here.
>
> To answer Jon Lawrence on his "address space depletion worries": please
> *do* the math, just once, and then stop this often repeated but invalid
> argument.  There are 4 *billion* /32 prefixes.  Handing out (globally
> visible) /32s will not be a mistake because the *addresses* run out - the
> problem space is "number of AS numbers" and "number of routing table
> entries".
>
yes, there will other problems that will/should manifest themselves way before 
there is any address depletion worries. I also wasn't around when the initial 
v4 mistakes were made (well, I was but not in this industry) - but I'm 
willing to bet the arguments were the same (ie the address space is so large 
it doesn't matter what we give out). That argument is pure *bull*, as Randy 
points out no one has ever successfully predicted how far things in this 
industry will have to scale in the future.
The math is vastly different, a class A was a much bigger % of the available 
space - and perhaps /32(/48)'s are the right places to draw the line. But 
that's what it is, where we (the industry) are suggesting the line is drawn. 
The idea that the address range is so vast that it will never be deleted is 
*rubbish*. 

Is the number of routing table entries an issue ? only the manufacturers can 
possibly tell us what routers may be able to handle in 10 years time.

So that only question is where do we draw the line on who gets routable 
address space:
1) companies who provide addresses to clients (ie ISP's).
2) critical infrastructure
3) anyone who wants to multihome.
or 4) anyone who can afford it.

Jon