Hello, On 10/27/2013 08:20 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
Hi Yannis and list,
Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> writes:
Hi Roger and list,
On Fri, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> writes:
Oct 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com> wrote: What I wouldn't want to see however is that some big player gets some extra address space because they wasted their existing one. Once that happens, everyone will demand the same.
On 10/27/2013 09:54 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: that's the second time I read this in this thread. Why would this happen? All allocations are subject to RIR policy yes, but policies can be circumvented, lobbied out of the way or overridden by legislation, as was effectively the case with the Nortel/Microsoft deal, among others.
usually, policy works just fine and by policy I mean something like RIPE-589 which aims to make sure that folks don't just waste their precious space as per your original comment. Nortel/MS case is totally different IMO.
There used to be a policy that IP addresses can't be traded. Take a look at the recordings from the RIPE meeting last week to see what happens right now.
It's still up to us (RIR members) to change the shape of things to come, although I feel we're off-topic again :)
One way to waste is to give every single customer a /48 when you are really really big. /56 work just fine really, even for techies like me :) Sorry, but I disagree on that. A /56 is fine for today's requirements, but if this hype about the "Internet of Things" really takes off and you want to put things into different subnets, a /56 may occasionally be a problem even for consumer households. Not today, but think anything from ten to fourty years. 40 years from now? Many, more significant changes will probably overshadow this. Otherwise, 256 different policies in a home sound just fine According to Bob Kahn with exactly the same reasoning the original 6 bit addresses in the Arpanet were widely ridiculed; pretty much the same happened again again when they went straight for 32 bit addresses in IPv4 (which was pretty much exactly the 40 years I mentioned ago, so that's where I got that number from).
If you plan for future networks by today's demands, without taking into account either some future growth nor some imminent or at least apparent developments, like the currrent growth of networked embedded systems, you won't make it through even the next ten years.
And considering the time it took for IPv6 to take off, even if we started on developing its successor today, we'd have to live with IPv6 for another 25 years or more; IPv4 will likely last another five years, making it a total lifetime of 45 years. We might as well accept that whatever we do today will haunt us at that long as well.
I was merely stating that 40 years from now is an awfully long time to plan for (as far as an addressing plan goes) and to be honest I don't know many people who do.
* Somewhere else I'm using a /50 on the wire, that also work just fine. Same issue. Yes, at least some implementations support that right now, but you shouldn't rely on that. Additionally, for whoever may have to run that system further later on you set up some ugly surprise that way. again, care to elaborate a bit? [snip]
How's a /50 not compliant with RFC 4291?
actually, I missed "on the wire" from the original comment :) cheers, Yannis
Cheers,
Benedikt