RE: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

On 3 Jun. 2017 03:15, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
wrote:

>> Would be a shame to throw away lessons learned from IPv4.
>
> I think that's exactly the fallacy here. It is not useful to apply
something
> you learned about IPv4 addressing to IPv6, because the number of addresses
> is incomparably bigger. Rule of thumb in software engineering is that a
> solution usually scales by one or two orders of magnitude. Here we have
> something like 34 orders of magnitude. Even a single /64 is 9 orders of
> magnitude larger than the IPv4 Internet.

Yeah, this hype needs to end. A /64 hard boundary merely doubles the width
of IPv4 addresses, and egregiously wastes the majority of the remaining 64
bits.  And with innovations such as IoT, suddenly all that vast extra space
can be swallowed up. Back in 1980, IPv4 address space seemed pretty huge
too. The deployment assumptions made are key, when people make assertions
about the vastness of the address space.

> Example: I don't want us to have to deal with NAT any more, ever.

I've seen this comment made before, and yet the /64 hard boundary
practically guarantees that NAT will get used with IPv6.

How does that guarantee it? Classless IPv4 didn't prevent NAT being
deployed.

In my experience, cost of public address space, the size of the private
address space and it being free, the perception that NAT didn't cause any
issues and the perceived level of security isolation private addressing
provided were the reasons NAT continued to be deployed after classless IPv4
commonly became available.

Regards,
Mark.

It's

exactly the same solution, for exactly the same problem. Inability to
expand at the edges.

Bert

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------