On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote:
> > > From: <christopher.mor...@gmail.com> on behalf of Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM > To: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> > Cc: Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > >> >> I’ve tried several times to come up with a scenario that leads to >> depletion in less than 200 years, and I haven’t managed it. Can you do it? >> > > during some ARIN discussions that revolved around Transition Technologies > and allocations to large ISPs, there were more than a few folk batting > around the idea that they may need to allocate a /24 or a /20 even to a > single provider. > > I believe DT has a /19 assigned to them currently? how many /19's are > there in the v6 space? (524288-ish) > That's only ~100x the current number of active ASN in the field. It's > unclear (to me) how many of those could/would justify a /19 equivalent, and > how fast the ASN field is growing over time. > > > DT is one of the largest ISPs in the world, isn’t it? > > it's large, but really it's going to hit the same number of homes (about) as att/verizon/comcast/embarq ... and I'm sure ntt, 'russian cableco', the 5 china-cablecos etc. Right? germany is ~83m people... 100x that is about 1.2x world population, so ... it seems conceivable that there are ~100 isps (one per country) about the same size, right? > Can you devise a scenario in which there are 524,288 ISPs the size of DT? > I think I did something in my reply which I should not have done, I conflated the DT issue and the transition technology discussion...splitting those up: 1) For DT, my understanding is that their allocation is this size due to part of their deployment plan/technology. (multiple /48's per site, one per particular technology in use - video, voice, intertubes, on-demand-video, something...7/site I believe was their target) 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite as the transition technology in use. (map the customer to not a /128 in the ds-lite, but a /48) > Or one where every currently active ASN, times 100X, needs/justifies a /19? > > > 200 years seems optomistic, 20 years seems easy to imagine surpassing > though. What's the sweet spot? > > > > 200 years seems pessimistic to me. Every scenario I run uses ridiculously > profligate assumptions, and usually multiplies those by a few orders of > magnitude. Even extrapolating from your math above, I don’t get less than > 2222CE. > > ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen, in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is ok to assume. A larger point is: "so what?" we've run a number conversion / renumbering once... we can do it again, better the second time, right? :) Maybe this next time we'll even plan based on lessons learned in the v4 -> v6 slog? > Lee > >