Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.
It is best to clarify what resource we want to conserve. I don't think there is any need to conserve IPv4 addresses any more. Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years. We also have a replacement protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia and in Europe. However, we might still want to conserve the number of entries in the global routing table because of the impact on router memory, router CPU and the time required to reload a full view of the Internet when a router is restarted. If we refuse to give DENIC a /24 from the recovered "Class C" swamp space we would be saving a small amount of IPv4 address space but we might not save any global routing table entries... --Michael Dillon
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.
It is best to clarify what resource we want to conserve. I don't think there is any need to conserve IPv4 addresses any more.
"IPv6 usage growth will also transform conservation of IPv4 in a non-issue."
Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years.
100% Agree. I dont want IPv6 because the world is running out of addresses, i want IPv6 because IPv6 is better than IPv4.
We also have a replacement protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia and in Europe.
I usually tend to say: IPv6 is not a new protocol, it is a new protocol *version*...
However, we might still want to conserve the number of entries in the global routing table because of the impact on router memory, router CPU and the time required to reload a full view of the Internet when a router is restarted. If we refuse to give DENIC a /24 from the recovered "Class C" swamp space we would be saving a small amount of IPv4 address space but we might not save any global routing table entries...
surely...
--Michael Dillon
./Carlos -------------- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (131586/456), naming (millions) and... people!"
participants (2)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com