SV: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] På vegne av Gert Doering
Sendt: 7. april 2005 21:01
>
>
>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".

I will have no problem telling you that.
I agree with Randy (every size limit that has ever been done in computing has proved to be too small in the long run).
I am not implying that we will run out of addresses tomorrow, only that we will run out. 


>Show me the network plan that documents the need for a /40.  16 million
>independent multiaccess networks ("LAN")???  (There are some, but it's
>going to be "few").

Well then I can show you a plan that doesn't work: The 200 /48 customer assignment policy plan (which was what I argued about in the first place)
LIRs need IPv6 prefixes in order to use IPv6. What are you waiting for, RIPE? A better IP protocol? Since it is not due to the infinite, as you say it, resource of IPv6 addresses the reason for this policy must be due to the problem with a large, global routing table. 
The economical side of an enormous routing table will affect anyone. I am sure we can agree on that this won't kill the entire Internet. If you truly need multihoming, you can afford it whatever it cost.  The whole multihoming issue is one big economical reason anyway.  Therefore I can't see the problem with my open policy suggestion. I believe it to be better than the existing one although perhaps not 110% perfect. You will simply charge the customer more if it really comes to it in 100 years, but by then I, and you should too, expect better cost-effective routing hardware. The customer will pay, they always do. 


Joergen Hovland ENK