We are still not out of IPv4 address space. I don't know the projections for address space depletion, but I think the IPv6 problem won't be so much address space depletion as route space depletion. I think it will be unwieldy to have a million or 2 million or 10 million distinct routes. Aggregation won't happen the way things are currently organized. <soapbox> I think the RIRs (at least for IPv6) need to be organized differently. In order for address space to be hierachical, for efficient aggregation and routing, addresses have to be given out locally, like phone numbers. Unfortunately, that isn't how ISP's or the address registries are organized. Fees are strongly biased towards big companies, yet the small and medium sized companies generate most of the revenue. It costs way too much money to get IPv6 space for every town to have their own address space, so that even barn, cow, and coke machine can be connected to the internet. Something needs to give. </soapbox> --Dean On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, 27 April, 2003 22:24 -0700 Bill Manning > <bmanning@ISI.EDU> wrote: > > > % As John Klensin pointed out on this same list several weeks > > ago % (and I'm sure he said it better than I will), the > > decision to % use ambiguous local addressing in IPv4 (i.e. RFC > > 1918 addresses) % was partially motivated by the desire to > > conserve IPv4 address % space. In IPv6, we don't have an > > address space shortage, so there % is no reason to introduce > > architectural complexity to conserve % address space. > > % > > % Margaret > > > > "dont' have an address space shortage..." - Margaret > > -YET- > > IPv4 didn't have one either, in its early days. > > Bill, regardless of what other features are there and what other > justifications might exist, the primary problem and hence design > goal that brought IPv6 into existence was "not enough address > space". If we can (even in our paranoid moments) reasonably > anticipate running out of space, then it is time to send the > IPv6 addressing architecture back to the drawing board and > replace it with something that supports variable or > extensible-length addresses. I really can't imagine a rational > enterprise voluntarily deciding to convert to IPv6 if they are > told it only has a lifetime of NN years, where NN is less than > at least a major fraction of a century. > > For that purpose, I think "running out of space" can be defined > as finding ourselves with a need to adopt allocation policies or > strategies (now or later) that force people into non-unique > addresses to conserve space. > > It seems to me that if you, or anyone else, wants to make the > case that the IPv6 address space isn't going to be large enough, > you need to do so explicitly and immediately (five years ago > would have been better, but maybe we know more now). While I, > personally, would have preferred extendable length addresses, it > feels to me that saying "yet" at this stage in the game is just > pointless sniping unless you are willing to argue for calling a > halt at this stage and redesigning. > > regards, > john > > >