[AusNOG] /20 Available

[Mark Smith]

>________________________________
> From: Chris Hurley <chris at minopher.net.au>
>To: Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk>; august forsakov <forsakov at gmail.com> 
>Cc: "ausnog at ausnog.net" <ausnog at ausnog.net> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2013 6:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] /20 Available
> 
>
>Re: [AusNOG] /20 Available 
>Yep whatever number IP 6 will support (slice it dice it) it will at some point run out of spaces, Murphy’s Law.
>
>MAJOR lesson to enable up take to IP 7, 8 whatever comes in the future is backwards compatibility. IP 6 wanted to expand “IP 4” and “fix some issues”

Given than IPv4 addresses are costing real and significant amounts of money today, and the RIRs are running out, IPv6 isn't just "fix(ing) some issues".

> so now we have IP4  that won’t talk with IP 6, so the gods in there push for the holy grail forget  the current users.

I suggest you read this thread for the discussion if why backwards compatibility wasn't possible.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71740.html


Perhaps when people make these sorts of criticisms, they should (a) consider the experience and reputations of the people who developed those solutions, because they're implying they're smarter than those people, and (b) come up with their own solutions. So there is the challenge, if you think IPv6 is the wrong solution, what is *your* right solution, that is better - not what your solution would do (That's easy! Through the magic of computers, it'll translate between French and English perfectly!), but how it would actually *do it*.


> And people wonder why companies/people won’t buy new equipment. The Y2000k bug is in the non tech persons mind. They think because the world didn’t end that it’s all an beat up IT people trying to get  a bigger budget :-( 
>
>What they don’t understand is a lot of work was done to ensure 2000 didn’t implode the world.  And yes on midnight 2000 some services failed – lifts, cars, building doors, prison security. 
>
>Will the over lords make the same mistakes probably but at least people should flag them.
>

The IETF welcomes contributions from anybody - there is no membership, required qualifications or required experience. Follow and contribute to the relevant mailing lists, and If you think you've got better solutions to a problem, write and submit an Internet Draft 


>
>
>
>On 22/01/13 6:34 PM, "Lloyd Wood" <lloyd.wood at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>IPv6 addresses are assigned to organizations in much larger blocks as compared to IPv4 address assignments—the recommended allocation is a/48block which contains 280addresses, being 248or about2.8×1014times larger than the entire IPv4 address space of 232addresses and about7.2×1016times larger than the/8blocks of IPv4 addresses, which are the largest allocations of IPv4 addresses. The total pool, however, is sufficient for the foreseeable future, because there are 2128or about3.4×1038(340trillion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%5E12> trillion trillion) unique IPv6 addresses.
>>>>
>>I'm pretty sure they were saying something similar when they were first handing out Class A's.
>>
>>>>________________________________
>>_______________________________________________
>>AusNOG mailing list
>>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>