Re: draft-azinger-cidrv6-00

[Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>]

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> 
>> Again, we are not claiming that this will be the growth rate.  We are simply pointing out the mathematical implications of a sustained 54% rate.  The number is not arbitrary in the least, it simply shows the implications of where we might be in 30 years.
> 
> Personally and speaking for myself, I don't see why the 54% growth rate would be sustained. Basically, you have a lot of folks that don't have an IPv6 prefix but that have an IPv4 prefix mirroring their IPv4 connectivity. I would expect IPv6 prefix growth to be similar to IPv4 prefix growth in the long haul, not to vastly outweigh it.


Hi Fred,

Well, as mentioned in the draft, there are many factors that influence prefix growth and we do not claim to have a definitive and predictive model of what that growth will be.

It's possible that growth will turn out to match v4 growth, but to do so probably requires that we shift address allocation policies to at least match what's done with CIDR for IPv4.  If we don't progress at least that much, then it's not unreasonable to expect that we will end up with PI advertisements for each possible site (for an arbitrarily small definition of site) for IPv6.  That could grow to be very, very, very large.

Our job is to establish policies, technologies, etc. that ensure that the routing subsystem for the Internet scales.

Regards,
Tony