[AusNOG] IPv4

[Skeeve Stevens]

The thing is... the ITU can whinge... but their arguments are a little moot
these days.

Was v4 allocations screwed? I don't know.  We didn't know what was going to
happen 20 years ago... It is easy to look back in hindsight.

Will v6 suffer the same issues?  I don't know... but I don't think so.

I've said in another email that a /32 is 4.2billion /64's.  Well the
Defence Force in Australia has a /20 - that is 4096 /32's...  That is 17
trillion /64's (17,592,186,044,416).  I'd try to figure out how many actual
individual IP addresses that is, but Excel kind loses its mind at that
point.

IPv4 is dead.  People need to get over it and move to IPv6... it is the
only way that IPv6 won't be more valuable than gold in the next couple of
years.  Even if we did all start to move ASAP, it is going to take 4-7
years to see IPv4 almost gone.  Some say it will be around for a long
time... but once v6 takes hold, and we reach hump point... then ISPs will
start to be able to switch off v4, which will make those with content on v4
move very quickly.... and the speed of v4 decline will be VERY rapid.

To those who say it will be much longer, really do fail to understand the
economics of it all and how rapidly adoption will increase if there is a
reason to.  Imagine Google, Facebook, something else new coming out which
says 'v6 only'.  Now, that would be foolish, but if the demand is strong
enough, it will go ballistic very quickly.  Anyone who says that isn't
possible is simple evaluating things by todays existing events, and not by
the potential that we know the Internet hasn't even realised yet.

...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Bevan Slattery <Bevan.Slattery at nextdc.com>wrote:

> Hey James,
>
> Again great response.  I'm not going to continue shove this too hard :)  I
> think we're pretty clear on both sides :)
>
> I've known numerous people at APNIC and others for many years.  Worked on
> a number of initiatives.  Obviously it's full of good people.  I also
> commend you, Skeeve and others working hard for no reward, but to try to
> make the world a better place.
>
> So my frustration is more at the structural limitations of the
> organisation and this is the same with other RIR's, not the people nor the
> work they do.
>
> Do I think the RIR's and APNIC have erred here?  You bet.  Do I actually
> think they should have done better - absolutely no question.  Do I think
> they could have done something different? Yep too.
>
> The structure of the RIR's including membership and historical decisions
> have severely limited their ability to affect significant change and make
> the hard decisions.  That is a shame. The UN and ITU have been knocking on
> your door and they are going to come knocking again - and I think their
> argument is going to have some merit in the shorter term (not ideal) when
> recently developing countries are being treated poorly in terms of
> resource allocation.
>
> Out :)
>
> [b]
>
>
> On 3/03/13 4:58 PM, "James Spenceley" <james at iroute.org> wrote:
>
> >I didn't say I was that free market person or that was the purpose of any
> >policy. There are side effects of any action or for that matter inaction,
> >it would be responsible to just stick our heads in the sand and ignore
> >them. Anyone involved in oversight has the job to consider all possible
> >outcomes. I don't think you can think for a second that my PS: comment
> >should be considered the main or even official APNIC position on the
> >policy, I was noting a side effect as I believe it added relevance to the
> >debate.
> >
> >I'm the biggest free market guy there is (well maybe after you Bev :) but
> >for APNIC's role you have to consider that free market economics simply
> >don't work across a broad cross sections of economies and member's
> >interests. That doesn't mean we can ignore their effects, which was the
> >reason for the openness in that statement.
> >
> >On 03/03/2013, at 4:14 PM, Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> A free market would dictate that the entire space comes to auction
> >>regularly and pretending that a secondary market for those who were
> >>essentially gifted space of an globally important resource because of
> >>poor management is a red herring.
> >>
> >> Surprising comment from what is supposed to be a not for profit
> >>organisation that is supposed to be concerned with the global resource
> >>management of Internet addresses.
> >>
> >> Completely counter to your argument earlier where you extolled the
> >>virtues of APNIC trying to reduce the cost for developing nations and
> >>yet in the next breath saying maybe capitalism dictating $50/ip is just
> >>fine and dandy.
> >>
> >> Registries have failed and continue to fail in managing this address
> >>space.
> >
> >
> >IP has been broken since the early 80's and RFC 791.
> >
> >Overtime we have all done out best to become aware of the problem, then
> >manage that problem As time has gone on, each incarnation (internNIC,
> >AUNIC, RIRs) have done a better and better job at. CIDR was a massive
> >positive step, RFC2050 another one (most of the authors of those were RIR
> >staff), the final /8 policy is allowing late comers to the game to get at
> >least functional space. The RIRs have the biggest promoters of IPv4
> >exhaustion and IPv6 training/awareness.
> >
> >These are all pretty decent achievements, especially given the
> >geopolitics involved.
> >
> >Have there been mistakes ? Of course, geez InterNIC giving IBM, HP,
> >Apple, DEC, MIT, Ford, GE, Haliburton, US Postal etc) an entire /8 can't
> >exactly be argued to be a positive but that would have simply bought us
> >time, how much ? still nowhere near what is needed to migrate the worlds
> >largest creation from one protocol to another.
> >
> >Again, given that NextDC have their own IP space today is just one of the
> >reason I point to the fact that your statement (and rather binary
> >criticism) isn't particularly fair.
> >
> >What has failed was the design (complication, lack of backwards
> >compatibility) and implementation of IPv6. The Industry globally has
> >failed by only waiting till it was too late l(like 10 years to late) to
> >start dealing with this problem. I can dig up ausnog posts of people who
> >only a few years ago were saying that IPv4 exhaustion was simply a myth.
> >
> >It's great to having this debate now, a good thing, but you can't deny
> >the fact it is coming a little bit too late (but better than never). I
> >don't think blaming APNIC or the RIRs is the right direction to take
> >this, we are doing the best we can do for the broad set of "yous" we have
> >(both new and future), we do this in a complicated environment that was
> >broken before any of us even got involved.
> >
> >--
> >James
> >
>
>
>
> The information contained in this email and any attachments may be
> confidential. This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright.
> No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the
> written permission of the copyright owner. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this
> information is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email
> in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete
> the message from your system. All email communications to and from NEXTDC
> Limited are recorded for the purposes of archival and storage.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130303/4ea84b90/attachment.html>