IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 3F21C3A6AFE for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:22:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8sgN8xkRjCpT for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319B33A6AFD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTSsWs3yNkUqOWqVZlaLbqqZNo7+X1cbg@postini.com; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:24:52 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB881B8295 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F564190054; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.65] (96.39.66.70) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:24:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D22949C.3040001@sri.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:24:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6EBF7C86-8E2D-4CC3-ABCB-D3A741872F2B@nominum.com>
References: <4D21FE53.5090702@sri.com> <m2oc7x36iu.wl%randy@psg.com> <4D22949C.3040001@sri.com>
To: Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:22:39 -0000

On Jan 3, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> We can only hope that 340 trillion trillion trillion is enough for a 
> while...

It's frustrating that people describe the situation this way.   The problem with IPv4 and IPv6 is not that there aren't enough addresses to address all the devices that need to be addressed (although in the case of IPv4, that is a true statement).   It's that a one-to-one mapping of devices to addresses is not, and never can be, possible, and so the address needs to be large enough to account for the necessarily less efficient mapping that is required in the real world.

The "number of atoms in the universe" comparison is hopelessly misleading, and should not be repeated by people who understand the problem.   It leads to things like people advocating the use of broadcast networks with host address numbering narrower than 64 bits.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email