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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf