Waste will kill ipv6 too

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

> On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:11, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- jlightfoot at gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Lightfoot <jlightfoot at gmail.com>
> 
> Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an 
> argument between people who understand big 
> numbers and those who don't.  
> ------------------------------------
> 
> No, not exactly.  It's also about those that 
> think in current/past network terms and those 
> who are saying we don't know what the future 
> holds, so we should be careful.
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> which means 79 octillion people...no one 
> alive will be around
> -----------------------------
> 
> Stop thinking in terms of people.  Think in 
> terms of huge numbers of 'things' in the 
> ocean, in the atmosphere, in space, zillions 
> of 'things' on and around everyone's bodies 
> and homes and myriad other 'things' we can't 
> even imagine right now.

Sure, but likely zillions of ocean sensors will share a few /64s rather than getting a /48 each. 

Do you really think each person needs more than a thousand or so subnets for their wearable sensors? If not, then 1 of the many /48s they can safely consume has them covered. 

Can I see a possible future in which homes actually need /48s? Sure. But weâ??ve got more than enough /48s to do that.

As Iâ??ve said many times before, letâ??s see how it goes with the first /3 doing things as designed and intended. If it turns out to consume that 1/8th of the address space while Iâ??m still alive, Iâ??ll happily help build more restrictive allocation policies for the remaining virgin 5/8ths and the fractions of the 1/4 of the address that have a very small number of special use carve-outs (0::/3 and e000::/3). 

Given that we still have more than 500 /12s free in the first /3 20 years into the process, Iâ??m thinking we arenâ??t likely to have that issue. 

Owen

> 
> scott