On Sep 18, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 09:27:43 PM Usman Latif wrote:
This may be a correct assumption so long as the current
architectures of subnets residing behind a physical
router device continue to hold - because the real surge
would occur if virtualized hosts themselves become
router devices and further require subnets to reside
behind them.
There's really no problem there. It's unlikely a virtualized
host would consume more than a /48 even with /64s per
virtualized subnet behind it.
If the above becomes the case, we could have problems...
And that's the point - there's just no way of knowing what
will happen in the future (whether during our lifetime, or
not) that may accelerate the use of v6 address space, as our
projections are based on current trends today, which may not
be applicable beyond us.
True, but, that's why we have 512 /12s in the first /3 and I'm
advocating that we see how it goes for 20 of them.
My bet is that we won't burn through even 20 of the /12s in
the first 20-50 years of IPv6 deployment.
I believe that the scaling limit we will hit with the IPv6 protocol
is not address space. I don't know what it will be, but, I predict
that it will not be addressing.
Of course, this is on the assumption that this protocol is
expected to outlive many of us, something our children's
children's children will be happy that we thought about. If
we're, however, looking at a shorter time scale, all bets
are off. But I digress :-)...
I think a 50 year lifespan for a protocol is optimistic. I think
that if we get 30-50 years out of IPv6, it will have had a good
run.
IPv6 is not our first protocol swap-out and it won't be our last.
Owen