Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addr
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