[address-policy-wg] RE: IPv6 allocations for 6RD
michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Dec 2 13:03:04 CET 2009
> I strongly agree with the concern that v6 addresses could be > depleted quickly. > > This problem will never be solved appropriately until you > impose fees for addresses that increase with the size of the > block being requested. Wrong! We can solve this problem the same way that we solved IPv4 runout. As long as we have IPv9 ready to deploy by 2050, we can avoid any risks of IPv6 addresses running out. And because of the timeline, we can address other issues such as making the minimum MTU 9192, allocating both global unicast and geographical unicast address ranges, upgrading core routing to BGP5extensible, integrating the RIR's PKI and identifier/locator registry into the routing, and so on. We don't even have to start work on the IPv9 design until 2030 or so, which gives plenty of time for people to gain large-scale IPv6 operational experience. --Michael Dillon P.S. Some problems just melt away when you look up and see the context. It's like looking down the barrel of a loaded 45 magnum pointed at you by a hardened criminal, and looking up to see the TV screen in your living room and attached Playstation 3. What looks like a problem, really isn't one.