Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[George Metz <george.metz () gmail com>]

Reasonability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but I thank you
for the compliment. :)

The short answer is "yes, that constitutes being prudent". The longer
answer is "it depends on what you consider the wildest dreams".

There's a couple of factors playing in. First, look at every /64 that is
assigned as an IPv4 /32 that someone is running NAT behind. This is flat
out WRONG from a routing perspective, but from an allocation perspective,
it's very much exactly what's happening because of SLAAC and the 48-bit MAC
address basis for it. Since /64 is the minimum, that leaves us with less
than half of the available bit mask in which to hand out that 1/8th the
address space. Still oodles of addresses, but worth noting and is probably
one reason why some of the "conservationists" react the way they do.

Next, let's look at the wildest dreams aspect. The current "implementation"
I'm thinking of in modern pop culture is Big Hero 6 (the movie, not the
comics as I've never read them). Specifically, Hiro's "microbots". Each one
needs an address to be able to communicate with the controller device. Even
with the numbers of them, can probably be handled with a /64, but you'd
also probably want them in separate "buckets" if you're doing separated
tasks. Even so, a /48 could EASILY handle it.

Now make them the size of a large-ish molecule. Or atom. Or protons.
Nanotech or femtotech that's advanced enough gets into Clarke's Law - any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - but in
order to do that they need to communicate. If you think that won't be
possible in the next 30 years, you probably haven't been paying attention.

However, that's - barring a fundamental breakthrough - probably a decade or
two off. Meanwhile we've got connected soda cans to worry about.

I wrote my email as a way of pointing out that maybe the concerns (on both
sides)- aren't baseless, but at the same time maybe there's a way to split
the difference. It's not too much of a stretch to see that, soon, 256
subnets may not actually be enough to deal with the connected world and
"Internet of Things" that's currently being developed. But would 1024? How
about 4096? Is there any need in the next 10-15 years for EVERYONE to be
getting handed 65,536 /64 subnets? Split the difference, go with a /52 and
suddenly you've got FOUR THOUSAND subnets for individual users so that
their soda cans can tell the suspension on their car that it's been opened
and please smooth out the ride.

Frankly, both sides seem intent on overkill in their preferred direction,
and it's not particularly hard to meet in the middle.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote:

> On 7/14/15 6:23 AM, George Metz wrote:
>
> > It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the
> > insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6
> > depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner
> > than one might expect.
>
> I've been trying to stay out of this Nth repetition of the same
> nonsensical debate, since neither side has anything new to add. However
> George makes a valid point, which is "learn from the mistakes of the past."
>
> So let me ask George, who seems like a reasonable fellow ... do you think
> that creating an addressing plan that is more than adequate for even the
> wildest dreams of current users and future growth out of just 1/8 of the
> available space (meaning of course that we have 7/8 left to work with
> should we make a complete crap-show out of 2000::/3) constitutes being
> prudent, or not?
>
> And please note, this is not a snark, I am genuinely interested in the
> answer. I used to be one of the people responsible for the prudent use of
> the integers (as the former IANA GM) so this is something I've put a lot of
> thought into, and care deeply about. If there is something we've missed in
> concocting the current plan, I definitely want to know about it.
>
> Even taking into account some of the dubious decisions that were made 20
> years ago, the numbers involved in IPv6 deployment are literally so
> overwhelming that the human brain has a hard time conceiving of them.
> Combine that with the conservation mindset that's been drilled into
> everyone regarding IPv4 resources, and a certain degree of over-enthusiasm
> for conserving IPv6 resources is understandable. But at the same time,
> because the volume of integers is so vast, it could be just as easy to slip
> into the early-days v4 mindset of "infinite," which is why I like to hear a
> good reality check now and again. :)
>
> Doug
>
> --
> I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This
> message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate,
> please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and
> the mail software you use. Thanks!