IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A good "state of the art" overview of IPv6 Transition from FCC

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 04 January 2011 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099113A6B7A for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGVKmeKbj2V8 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6463A6B7E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA0FF816A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:52:35 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99993F81A2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:52:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 89168 invoked by uid 1007); 4 Jan 2011 12:52:35 +0100
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:52:35 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <20110104115235.GL3695@Space.Net>
References: <C94805B3.6166%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <694163C9-D39C-40F5-9544-3FB1FD6733F3@virtualized.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <694163C9-D39C-40F5-9544-3FB1FD6733F3@virtualized.org>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A good "state of the art" overview of IPv6 Transition from FCC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:50:34 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 10:47:17PM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
> It does, however, mean technical folks need to be vigilant about how 
> address policy is defined and by whom. 

Indeed.

OTOH, I'm deeply convinced that the address space in IPv6 is there to be
*used*.  Bringing over the "conservation is holy!" IPv4 mindset to IPv6
will not do IPv6 any good.

So - if we indeed are too wasteful, we'll notice when we have burned
FP 001, and then we have 6 more tries to follow the conservationists'
advice.  Until then, I'd like to enjoy the new freedom.

(Yes, /32 is a huge chunk of addresses.  OTOH, there's 2^29 /32s in 
FP001, and I don't see 500 million LIRs appear any time soon.  Even if
we take up-to-/20-assignments into account, I still do not see a 
large enough number of correspondingly-sized enterprises around to
make this a serious problem - just how many Telcos are there that 
can warrant a /20?  More than 10.000?  There's 130.000 /20 in FP001...)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email