This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jon Lawrence
jon at lawrence.org.uk
Thu Apr 7 22:57:53 CEST 2005
On Thursday 07 April 2005 20:00, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > > How long do you think this /48 policy will last? I was hoping for > > at least 60 years++ so I don't need to have the same discussion > > again with IPv8. > > While I personally dislike /64s and /48s (for some other reasons that > do not need discussion here, as there are good reasons for /64 and /48, > and I can accept these), your argumentation is still flawed. > > Everybody that tells me "we will run out of IPv6 address space!!!!" has > pretty obviously not done the math - just count how many /48s are there, > and then do some estimation on how many people earth can suffice, and > how many /48s per person for each of those we have. Out of 2000::/3. > > *Then* come back and tell me (with a straight face) "we will run out > of IPv6 addresses because /48s are such a great waste". > While I understand and accept your argument here, whether we'd ever run out of address space imho has nothing to do with /48's. How many /32's have we got to play with ( 536870912 per /3 by my calculations) OK, that's still a big number. But if we allow everyone who wants to multihome a /32, there is the possibility that we could run out - not in the near future that's for sure. Many companies are still discovering how/if they can use the internet. As more and more uses for the 'net are thought up, companies are going to become more and more reliant on the 'net to the point where they will/may struggle to function without it - somewhere around that point, all companies will need to have a permanent connection and in my mind a permanent connection means multihoming. How many companies are there in this world ? Thus how many potential multihomers have we got ? - more than the number of /32's available, I doubt it (I don't think there are 4 billion companies). We're a along way off home users multihoming, so perhaps we'll never run out of /32's. But I for one would not like to bet on it. Jon
- Previous message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]