Stephen Sprunk writes:
And sequential assignments become pointless even with 32-bit
addresses because our routing infrastructure can't possibly handle
the demands of such an allocation policy.
They are pointless for the reasons you state, but they are also the
only way to get 2^128 addresses out of 128 bits. Anything else
encodes information in the address and reduces the usable address
space exponentially.
Railing against this decision is pointless unless you have a new
routing paradigm ready to deploy that can handle the demands of a
non-bitwise allocation model.
The bitwise allocations I'm hearing about are not based on routing.
I take it you mean "the blick of an eye" to mean a span of decades?
At best.
That is not the common understanding of the term, yet that's how
long we've been using the current system and it shows absolutely no
signs of strain.
So IPv6 is not needed?
To achieve bitwise aggregation, you necessarily cannot achieve
better than 50% use on each delegation boundary. There are currently
three boundaries (RIR, LIR, site), so better than 12.5% address
usage is a lofty goal. Again, if you want something better than
this, you need to come up with a better routing model than what we
have today.
I did, but nobody was interested.
Again, the current identifier/location conflation combined with the
routing paradigm leaves us no choice but to encode information into
the IP address.
In that case, any predictions of longevity for the system based on the
address space providing 2^n addresses for n bits are invalid.
Strangely, such predictions seem to be almost exclusively based on
this, and thus are necessarily wrong.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf