Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon () orthanc ca>]

On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf () tndh net> wrote:

> IPv6 is not the last protocol known to mankind. IF it burns out in 400-500
> years, something will have gone terribly wrong, because newer ideas about
> networking will have been squashed along the way. 64 bits for both hosts and
> routing was over 3 orders of magnitude more than sufficient to meet the
> design goals for the IPv4 replacement, but in the context of the dot-com
> bubble there was a vast outcry from the ops community that it would be
> insufficient for the needs of routing. So the entire 64 bits of the original
> proposal was given to routing, and the IETF spent another year arguing about
> how many bits more to add for hosts. Now, post bubble burst, we are left
> with 32,768x the already more than sufficient number of routing prefixes,
> but "IPv4-think" conservation believes we still need to be extremely
> conservative about allocations.

If you look at how the IoT model is evolving, the entire host+service (i.e. IP address + port number) model is rapidly 
disintegrating.  Services are the end-points now.  They need to be individually addressable, since they really have no 
affinity to physical hardware in the sense we currently think of "hosts," with IP and MAC addresses.  Host hardware is 
fungible; services are mobile.

The IPv6 address space conservatives are missing the entire point that IPv6, as a global addressing scheme, will 
collapse in the next couple of decades.  Host+port endpoint identifiers are already done.  We just haven't noticed yet.

--lyndon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail