On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:27 , Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:17:29 -0400, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>> Let's figure each person needs an end site for their place of business,
>> their two cars, their home, their vacation home, and just for good measure,
>> let's double that to be ultra-conservative. That's 10 end-sites per person
>> or 101 billion end sites.
>
> Can we stop with the lame "every person, and their dog!" numbering plans. The
> same MISTAKE has been repeated so many times in recent history you'd think
> people would know better. It's the exact same wrong-think that was applied to
> the 32bit IPv4 addressing in an era where there were a few dozen computers
> worldwide. (also that IPv4 was an "experiment" that was never imagined to be
> this big.)
>
> We're smart enough to mis-manage *any* resource. It's just a matter of
> "when" that it'll be back to haunt us. ("not within my lifetime" seems to be
> a very popular compromise.)
I'm more going for not within the useful lifetime of the protocol.
I figure we'll be lucky if IPv6 doesn't hit some non-address-size related
scaling limit in less than 50 years. As such, I figure a conservative protocol
lifetime of 100 years is not unreasonable.
If you read the rest of my post, you would realize that I wasn't arguing to
give out addresses to every person and their dog, but instead arguing that
trying to shift bits to the right would be costly and pointless because there
are more than enough bits on the left site already.
If you can provide any sort of math to back up a claim to the contrary, then
let's see it.
If all you've got is we have grossly underestimated demand in the past, then I
say sure, but we've so grossly overprovided for our estimate of demand in this
case that it's unlikely to be an issue in any probable lifetime of the protocol.
Owen
