Re: IPv6 adoption
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 04:11:30AM +0300, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > [begin nitpicking]
> > :-) Two minor points:
> > - It was 313 million per CUBIC millimeter, not square millimeter
> You still think of giving out EVERY ip address -
No, I'm trying to get across that 128 bits is a LOT.
Give out every 10th address and you still have 31 million addresses
per cubic millimeter. Give out every 1000th address and you still
have 300 000 addresses for every cubic millimeter.
I know some people have trouble comphrehending large numbers, but
really, come on...
> Not IPv6 makes this worse - The Bandwidth demand in the next
> Decades will make this Happen. We have to assign IP Address more
> in respect to routing topology than we do know.
You're not making any sense here. IPv6 makes it worse? Now you're
arguing in favor of IPv4?
Yes, bandwidth demand will go up dramatically. Yes, we need route
aggregation. Yes, that's what IPv6 gives us. And yes, there are
enough addresses for it.
> If MAE-East now doesnt accept announcements < /22 we will go up
> to /8 or something within short timerange.
> > Seriously, you're seeing the first section of an S curve. Exponential
> > growth doesn't go on forever. It tapers off when the environment is
> > saturated.
> This is what history should have learned us - Dont underestimate
> the market - If once they have seen what makes life easy they will adopt
> it very quick ...
This is going nowhere. Do the math and give us an even remotely
concrete scenario, in which we could run out of IPv6 addresses any time
soon. With the calculations, please.
Just out of curiosity, how many addresses would be enough, in your