[Deliberate top post]
All this fear about “waste” killing IPv6 is unwarranted.
It is about time to look at the business aspect of wasting human resources
fiddling with micro-optimization. We seem to have have two choices:
A. Keep arguing and complicating management of the IPv6 Internet and wasting
human resources ==> more cost.
B. Deploy IPv6 to end users using the RA/DHCP-PD and the like with the simplest
possible templates, e.g., /64+/48 to every edge host/router, no questions
asked, thus requiring fewer human resources ==> less cost.
Some major networks have long since adopted choice B.
The pace of technology change makes likely that "Waste will kill ipv6 too” will
be a moot issue by any of the time estimates discussed previously. Any prudent
business will choose “B”. Any other choice from this list would be a waste of
time and money.
See also “Human Use of Human Beings” by Norbert Weiner.
Cutler
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz <las...@heliacal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote:
>> Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
>> If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
>> addresses.
>
> After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why we're
> back to having to do NAT again, even though we now have a practically endless
> supply of integers. If we could have all agreed to just do /64+/48 to every
> edge host/router, no questions asked, we'd never have to talk about this
> again. Playing tetris with addresses had to be done with IPv4 but it's not
> even remotely a concern with IPv6 - the idea of waste and sizing networks is
> a chore that doesn't need to be thought about anymore. As you say, if you
> have a /64, you could run the entire internet with it, if you really wanted
> to do the kinds of hacks we've been doing with v4, but the idea is that you
> don't need to do any of that.
>
> -Laszlo
>
>>
>> On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>>>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
>>>>> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
>>>>> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,
>>>>> you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.
>>>> Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the
>>>> exception would be if a router does not support it.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Octavio.
>>> Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the
>>> interfaces.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
