[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?

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
>