Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

["Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>]

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we  
> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would  
> multiply it by roughly 4 billion.

I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.

> The routing problem might be real if everyone goes to PI, but I think  
> that’s an unlikely scenario.

Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks with  
multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them  
up, and there's little technical need for it.

> Your definition of “amazingly fast is pretty odd... we’ve allocated tiny  
> fractions of 2 /3 prefixes to special uses (multicast, ULA, loopback,  
> unknown, etc.). Beyond that, there’s a /3 delegated to IANA as unicast  
> space for distribution to the RIRs. Of that /3, IANA has delegated a  
> little more than 5 /12s to RIRs. That’s the total of 20 years worth of  
> turkey carving and constitutes well under 1/8th of the address space.  
> Issued. By that measure, we’ve got well over 160 years to worry about  
> runout.

After 20 years of not using IPv6, that's actually A LOT of carving. And if  
you look at what's been assigned vs. what's being announced vs. what's  
actually being used, there's a fantastic amount of waste. But nobody cares  
because there's plenty of space, and "we'll never use it all." (history  
says otherwise.)