In message <canjvb-jbtc4v5yba0xtga7n5geqcz86hvydj4j9j8uxhzmm...@mail.gmail.com> , George Metz writes: > That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago > if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addresses > in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving > mad.
I did that math ~30 years ago '88, when I got my first address blocks, and realised that IPv4 wasn't sustainable then. > That's what's really got most of the people who want (dare I say more > sane?) more restrictive allocations to be the default concerned; 30 years > ago the math for how long IPv4 would last would have been compelling as > well, which is why we have the entire Class E block just unusable and large > blocks of IP address space that people were handed for no particular reason > than it sounded like a good idea at the time. We don't use Class E because were using up IPv4 space too quickly to make it worthwhile to make it work cleanly for everyone. Note also the other 7/8ths the IPv6 space is reserved for unicast addresses. Class E was reserved for experimentation so in reality there is no comparison. > It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the > insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 > depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner > than one might expect. How many sites per person on the planet do you see in use in a 100 years, 1000 years. Out of this 1/8th there is around 350 per / person with /48's. > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > How so? > > > > There are 8192 /16s in the current /3. > > > > ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming 32 > > end-sites per person > > can=E2=80=99t really be all that many=E2=80=A6 > > > > > > 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP. > > > > 7,000,000,000 * 32 =3D 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 =3D 1,792 total /16s > > consumed. > > > > Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I= > =E2=80=99m > > still alive > > when we do, I=E2=80=99ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be e= > nacted > > while we > > burn through the second /3. That=E2=80=99ll still leave us 75% of the add= > ress > > space to work > > with on that new policy. > > > > If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let=E2= > =80=99s > > talk about > > an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it=E2=80=99s pa= > rtner /9 > > with an > > RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT > > fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off = > to > > waste. > > > > Yeah, I=E2=80=99m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately ju= > stify a > > /16. > > > > Owen > > > > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16 > > > > > > Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space. > > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org