Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Den 30/12/2017 kl. 03.30 skrev Scott Weeks: --- baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: From: Baldur Norddahl Nobody needs to worry...Historically we spent... -- Out of context, but yeah that. scott Not to worry, I thought

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Giving each nanobot a pair of /64s would be absurd. Maybe they aren’t all on the same link (there are no broadcast domains in IPv6), but likely a few /64s would cover each person. Owen > On Dec 29, 2017, at 18:31, Michael Crapse wrote: > > And if a medical breakthrough

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:11, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > --- jlightf...@gmail.com wrote: > From: John Lightfoot > > Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an > argument between people who understand big > numbers and those who don't. >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent. get a life!

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

--- br...@ampr.org wrote: From: Brian Kantor Just how many nanobots can dance on the head of a pin? --- 2^128? Just guessing. >;-) scott

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > Stop thinking in terms of people. Think in > terms of huge numbers of 'things' in the > ocean, in the atmosphere, in space, zillions > of 'things' on and around everyone's bodies > and homes and myriad other 'things'

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 02:46:49AM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > (the time has finally arrived) > Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/865/ Just how many nanobots can dance on the head of a pin? - Brian

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Crapse wrote: > And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots > that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair > your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6 is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

--- baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: From: Baldur Norddahl Nobody needs to worry...Historically we spent... -- Out of context, but yeah that. scott

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29 assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want. Go ahead. Just don't use anybody else's addresses to do it. :) -mel On Dec 29, 2017, at 4:52 PM, John Lightfoot > wrote: Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

--- jlightf...@gmail.com wrote: From: John Lightfoot Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument between people who understand big numbers and those who don't. No, not exactly. It's also about those that think in

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument between people who understand big numbers and those who don't. IPv4 has 2^32 addresses, IPv6 has 2^128, which means 79 octillion people can each have their own internet. I think Owen is being modest when he says no one alive will be around

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, wrote: > It's rather interesting how parsing of variable length addresses was > thought to be way too complicated - while parsing of IPv6 extension > header chains of unknown length was okay. > IIRC, IPv6 extension headers are optional. The

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Owen DeLong wrote: > fast routers mostly don’t parse those chains. ...unless they need to access the L4 header information in order to create useful hashes to load balance over LAG or ECMP bundles, or implement any sort of filtering, or RE / control plane policing. But outside these corner

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Dec 29, 2017, at 02:27, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize >>> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with >>> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 >>> lengths were

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 18:54, Ricky Beam wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we >> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

>>> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize >>> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with >>> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 >>> lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.) >> Actually, that got heaved

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: It's rather interesting how parsing of variable length addresses was thought to be way too complicated - while parsing of IPv6 extension header chains of unknown length was okay. I think this can be explained by "routers don't need to parse

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> > My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize > > IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with > > a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 > > lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.) > > Actually, that got

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 4:21 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said: >> PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests >> upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf >> of the

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests > upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf > of the downstream device and any prefixes it will be allocating itself. OK, I

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 2:51 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said: > >> I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is >> there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a >> small or medium

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > Comcast is passing out CPE that provides a subnet for the actual subscriber, > and another one for *other* Comcast roaming customers. And somehow this > works for a company the size of Comcast without the customers needing to

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:41:57 -0500, "Chuck Church" said: > If we'd just put a stake in the ground and say residences can have one > router and bridge everything below that we'd be further ahead. I just can't > see 99.999% of users being interested in subnetting their homes and writing >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said: > I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is > there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a > small or medium business will have any chance of using 4096 /64s? They won't burn 4096

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:54:46 -0500, "Ricky Beam" said: > Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks with > multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them > up, and there's little technical need for it. And yet, my Lede-based router burned up

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Brock Tice wrote: > > Most of our customers only have 2-5 devices. I know this is not the case > in most of America but we are quite rural and for many people they've > never had better than 1.5Mbps DSL until we install service at their > location.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

anog.org> > Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too > > >Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks > with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set > them up, and there's little technical need for it. > >

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ricky Beam Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:55 PM To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too >Every scenario everyone has come up wi

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: > > I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking > of IP networking for a little while, Just saying... Nah. This is a useful conversation (and argument) to have.

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking of IP networking for a little while, Just saying...

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Hi Lyndon, thanks for taking the time to address my questions. Responses below. On 2017-12-28 17:57, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote: >> We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable >> sparse allocation scheme that

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > > Home networks with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know > how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it. Again, you are assuming you know how people will use networks forever. Stop

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 1:54 pm, Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we >> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and >> we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would >> multiply it by roughly 4 billion. > I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want. You are totally free to do that if you please, no

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply it by roughly 4 billion. I'm saying I should be able to use whatever

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions placed upon that address space. And if some genius comes up with

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

IPv6 space is being wasted. We know that much. No one needs more than 8 bits for site-local global addresses in the upper 64 (2/3xxx:::::/64) of the address. I'm about to propose the most harebrained idea NANOG has ever seen. I feel like supersites are getting more addresses

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Peripherally, it's worth noting that, in far less time then we have not migrated from IPv4 to IPv6, the UK moved from 7-digit to 11-digit telephone numbers. If that's not embarrassing ... --lyndon

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 17:48 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > >> > > My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific > > use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s, > > it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available > >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > All I was trying to say is there're going to be things > not thought of yet that will chew up address space > faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's > essentially inexhaustible. And, I expect,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

You should go directly to ARIN, get a proper ISP allocation the size you need and have your upstream route that. Owen > On Dec 28, 2017, at 17:46, Michael Crapse wrote: > > As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a > /48, their statement

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? > > I like that one! :-) >> Seriously. All I was trying to say is there're going to be things not thought of yet that will chew up address space faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's essentially inexhaustible. And, I

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> [snip... I hate slash, I hate android, blah balh] > > Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half, > just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as > big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64 -- and the >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:14:06 -0500, b...@theworld.com said: > My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize > IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with > a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 > lengths were immediately

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? > > I like that one! :-) Seriously. If we run out of networks while handing out /48s, by migrating everything to HTTPS we can claw back the 16 bit 'port' field in the IP header and reassign it as part of the 140-bit IPv6.1 address space.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

>> > My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific > use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s, > it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available > (e.g., only to national-level providers as is their mission.) Why would anyone

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a /48, their statement "Here's a /48 that will give you unlimited addresses that you'll never run out of". Therefore we give businesses /60s and residentials /64. If only we could do as suggested here and give everyone a /48,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

:: Now think about scaling. Yes :: If the population doubles, we're now down to four spare /3s. :: If that doubled population doubles the number of devices, :: we're down to two spare /3s. If the population doubles :: again, there will be no civilization left, let alone an :: Internet.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 15:28, Brock Tice wrote: > >> On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote: >> There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your >> network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for >> justification and get your

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 14:31, Thomas Bellman wrote: > >> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > Instead, think about how we can carve up a 2^61 address space (based on the > current /3 active global allocation pool) between 2^32 people (Earth's > current population) Of course, I screwed up the numbers (thanks

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote: > > We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable > sparse allocation scheme that would account for future growth that > seemed like the best option. Could you detail the reasoning behind your allocation

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 11:24 am, Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a >> 64-bit total >> address and the additional 64 bits was added to make

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half, > just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as > big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64 Hi

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your address space is silly. And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. Incorrect. The original 128 address

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 13:31 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > > > > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often > > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 > >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote: > There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your > network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for > justification and get your /40 or whatever. We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 9:31 am, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many or

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > My problem with the IPv6 addressing scheme is not the waste of 64 bits > for the interface identifier, but the lack of bits for the subnet id. > 16 bits (as you normally get a /48) is not much for a semi-large organi-

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many or

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need > to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet > no matter how many or how few machines you want to put on it. > Before anyone rolls out the argument

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

And /48 was chosen as the site size so that we didn’t have to think about that either. It’s large enough to cover almost all sites with additional /48s to be provided if you run out of /64s. Nothing in the last 20+ years has lead me to believe that these decisions were wrong. In fact NOT

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think. Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. Owen > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

un...@nanog.org> en nombre de Octavio Alvarez > <octalna...@alvarezp.org> > Responder a: <octalna...@alvarezp.org> > Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 19:31 > Para: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > CC: <nanog@nanog.org> > Asunto: Re: Assigning /64 but using

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 > addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion > (2^32) usable

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Barry, The absence of data is not data :) -mel beckman > On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:05 PM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote: > > >> On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: >>the difference between thinking in terms of 128 >>bits vs 2^128 addresses

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: > the difference between thinking in terms of 128 > bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions > > > I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all > for

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

the difference between thinking in terms of 128 bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing structured assignments

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 19:23 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: > IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for > you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you > understand that background. By "IPng" I only meant whatever would

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you understand that background. -mel > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:15 AM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote: > > > Just an interjection but

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion (2^32) usable addresses with IPv4. We have entire /8s which are sparsely populated so

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

[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

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

e 2017, 19:31 Para: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> CC: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too) On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org&

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez 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

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

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

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

oun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Octavio Alvarez <octalna...@alvarezp.org> Responder a: <octalna...@alvarezp.org> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 18:25 Para: Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com>, <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too On 1

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

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. On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez 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

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

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,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 2017-12-21 08:58, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jason Iannone wrote: M plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide service to? I'm gonna go out on a

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around > > attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer)

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > 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

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Thanks but... that's the most elaborate "no comment" I've ever seen. Lol... thanks ytti -Aaron

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Current ARIN policy contemplated as much as a /12 per provider and set a cap there allowing a provider that needed more than that to only get additional /12s rather than nibble boundary round-ups. Owen > On Dec 20, 2017, at 15:07 , Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > On

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Owen DeLong wrote: 200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent something much more profligate than current policies. Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to be avoided. Agreed. we've run a number conversion / renumbering

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> 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

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

lt;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 sce

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

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 Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jason Iannone wrote: > M plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at > least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide > service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million. > there

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

A very familiar pattern. Pretty soon, our children will be going to intergalactic governance fora debating v6 exhaustion and dusting off Jim Fleming’s ipv9 -srs —srs

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

M plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million. 3 acquisitions rolled up into AS209: as3549 2605:a300::/32 2001:450::/32 as4323

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: [SNIP] 25B estimate for earth's carrying capacity for humans is likely on the high side, but sure: IPv6 should suffice until we have a few planets' worth of humans, and require an interstellar IP network with end-to-end

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

The RIR’s assignment to ISPs assume relatively dense assignment of /48 to customers. ISPs still have to justify the allocation based on the number of customers sites for shorter than a /32. RIR assignments to non ISPs are also relatively dense. If you have multiple sites you don’t need

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Handing out /48’s to homes was never ever going to cause us to run out of > IPv6 space. Even if the homes are are connected to multiple providers > there isn’t a issue. > Hi Mark, No single assignment practice would. Sadly

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I think he's referring to all the Unicast IPv6 outside of 2000::/3 getting designated as "reserved", and therefore no gear will ever successfully route it... just like happened with the Class E space. You'd think we would know better than to let that happen, but there's a lot of things you'd

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

riginal Message- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman >Sent: Wednesday, 20 December, 2017 14:39 >To: William Herrin >Cc: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too > >Bill, > >You are correct. > >As a double check, I divid

  1   2   >