nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:03:55 +1030
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:53:23 +0700 Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:But simply assuming that the IPv6 address space will forever remain that - only unique host identifiers - I think is disingenious at best. :-)I think 'disingenuous' is too strong a word - 'overly optimistic' better reflects the position, IMHO. ;> In addition to all the extremely valid use-cases you outline, there's also the concept of one-time-use prefixes which likely will end up being used at the molecular level in manufacturing/supply-chain applications, lifetime assignments to individuals as a matter of citizenship which will be retired upon their deaths/disenfranchisement, nanite communications used to do things like clean plaque out of people's arteries in lieu of angioplasty, and a whole host of new applications we haven't even dreamed of, yet. The supreme irony of this situation is that folks who're convinced that there's no way we can even run out of addresses often accuse those of us who're plentitude-skeptics of old-fashioned thinking; whereas there's a strong case to be made that those very same vocal advocates of the plentitude position seem to be assuming that the assignment and consumption of IPv6 addresses (and networking technology and the Internet in general) will continue to be constrained by the current four-decade-old paradigm into the foreseeable future.
The correct assumption is that most people will try and usually succeed at follow the specifications, as that is what is required to successfully participate in a protocol (any protocol, not just networking ones). IPv4 history has shown that most people will. People who argue against current Ipv6 address use projections are doing so with an unstated assumption that most people won't follow the specifications. Once you make that assumption, then anything at all can be used as an example to created FUD about running out of addresses, including the equally valid example that people will close their eyes and bash the number pad when entering IPv6 prefix or address information. The only way to prevent absolutely the misconfiguration of protocol parameters is to not make them configurable. Pretty much impossible to do with networking prefixes or addresses.
Current thread:
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN, (continued)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Roland Dobbins (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Ricky Beam (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Randy Carpenter (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Adrian Chadd (Jan 25)
- RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN George Bonser (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Roland Dobbins (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Roland Dobbins (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Karl Auer (Jan 26)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN eric clark (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Michael Dillon (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Ray Soucy (Jan 26)