Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")

To: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:20:04 +0100
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <84-1624110778.20031202210403@atkielski.com>
References: <C01FC9FDD15AF849BD9C7C26A91AF6AB12C408@w2k.w2kbraintec.braintec-consult.de> <000001c3b329$25c78690$b520a8c0@w2kbraintec.braintecconsult.de> <6.0.0.22.2.20031127212644.049baec0@mail.utel.net> <B63B3E7B-2190-11D8-9404-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <135-1998496436.20031128130419@atkielski.com> <D976E1E9-21A1-11D8-9404-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <17-1992293837.20031128144741@atkielski.com> <03DCFC71-21CA-11D8-9404-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20031202140312.2ad928ee.moore@cs.utk.edu> <84-1624110778.20031202210403@atkielski.com>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On 2-dec-03, at 21:04, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

Why dedicated /64 to anything?  We are getting by just fine on /32 for
the whole world right now.  Why is a sudden expansion of 2^32 required
RIGHT NOW?


Stateless autoconfiguration.

See, that's the classic mistake: Everyone wants to divide the entire
address space RIGHT NOW, without any clue as to how the world will
evolve in years to come.  Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it certainly
also seems that engineers abhor unallocated address space, and will try
to allocate everything even when they are lightyears off the mark

About 85% of the IPv6 address space is specifically left unused at this time. And even within the 2000::/3 which is defined for global unicast use *now* just 3/8192th is really used.

References:
- AW: IETF58 - Network Facts
  - From: Hans Peter Dittler
- national security
  - From: jfcm
- Re: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re[2]: national security
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: Re[2]: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re[4]: national security
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: Re[4]: national security
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski

Prev by Date: Re: Re[3]: national security
Next by Date: Re: Future IETF Meetings
Previous by thread: Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")
Next by thread: Re[2]: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: IPv6 addressing limitations (was "national security")

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.