Toshi,
Thank you for your note.
In response to the point you raise, I observe that what we have learned
with IPv4, and have learned from other related technologies that if we
start designing a successor technology at that point in time when scarcity
is already a factor in the current technology, then the successor design
will naturally tend to focus on that aspect which is scarce, rather than
attempting to design a technology which is better/faster/cheaper/more useful/.
I would put forward the proposition that if we embark on IPv6 with an
address plan that will work across our anticipated lifecycle for Ipv6, but
will encounter address exhaustion at that point then we have failed in the
IPv6 address plan, as we would not have learned one essential lesson from
the IPv4 experience. What would be a far better approach in the view of the
authors of this proposal, and one that underlies this proposal, is to be
able to say with some confidence that addresses will still be abundant at
the anticipated decline point in IPv6 technology, and that lack of IPv6
addresses will _not_ be a reason why we will move on from IPv6.
We should not be in the business of built in obsolescence, and certainly
not if we can buy additional time without undue pain. We've looked at the
HD ratio and the subnet boundary as potential points of variation in the
IPv6 address plan that could admit more efficient utilization without
substantial alteration to the overall IPv6 architecture and without undue
need to alter existing equipment, software or current deployments, such as
they are today. What we buy back is a greater level of assurance that IPv6
and its address plan can readily encompass even the most optimistic of
expectations of IPv6 utility and deployment.
regards,
Geoff
At 11:44 AM 1/09/2005, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear Geoff,
Thank you for your proposal submitted. Please allow me to ask you one
point on behalf of JP community, that is "How many years should IPv6
lifetime be?".
There was a comment in JPNIC Open Policy Meeting in July this year,
that he doesn't think there is any problem because *your* forecast shows
IPv6 will live for 100-120 years, that would be enough lifetime (from his
view).
According to your forecast referred here, and presented in the URL below,
a total of 1/2 of the available IPv6 address space would still be unused
after 60 years from now, even in the worst (most consumed) case.
<URL>
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-ipv6-roundtable-report.pdf
Furthermore he pointed out that Paul (Wilson: APNIC DG) had commented IPv6
should be live for at least 50 years time, which has no inconsistency with
your forecast.
<URL>
http://www.apnic.net/docs/apster/issues/apster4-200208.pdf
(page 8)
If I summarize his view, that would be "Current situation is within the
scope of original IPv6 distribution design because we will have IPv6 for
100-120 years. So what is the problem?".
How do you respond?
I appreciate your comments.
thanks and best regards,
Toshi
-------- Original Message --------
From: Geoff Huston gih@apnic.net
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] IPv6 Policy Proposal - prop-030-v001
Date: 2005/8/11 10:26
Attached are text, pdf and word versions of a IPv6 policy proposal for
consideration at APNIC-20
regards,
Geoff Huston
Stephan Millet
<snip..>