Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:25:55 -0700

On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote:

what is the life expectancy of IPv6?  It won't live forever and we
can't reasonably expect it too.  I understand we don't want run out of
addresses in the next 10-40 years but what about 100? 200? 300?

We will run out and our decedents will go through re-numbering again.
The question becomes what is the life expectancy of IPv6 and does the
allocation plan make a reasonable attempt to run out of addresses
around the end of the expected life of IPv6.

Well, we know that the human population will stabilise somewhere below
ten billion by around 2050. The current unicast space provides for about
15 trillion /48s. Let's assume that the RIRs and ISPs retain their current
level of engineering common sense - i.e. the address space will begin to be
really full when there are about 25% of those /48s being routed... that makes
3.75 trillion /48s routed for ten billion people, or 375 /48s per man, woman
and child. (Or about 25 million /64s if you prefer.)

It's not the humans that are going to soak up the address space, so it seems a little misguided to count up the 
humans a reference for the bounding properties on growth. That said I think 2000::/3 will last long enough, that we 
shouldn't be out rewriting policy anytime soon.

I disagree. I think current policy in several RIRs (APNIC, especially) is far too conservative
and that we do need to rewrite it. That's why I submitted prop-090 which has taken the
feedback I received into account and become prop-098.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]