Re:ARIN down to 1.00 /8 – Akamai got 104.64.0.0/10 yesterday
by asdfaoeu on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @10:16AM
(#7634074)
These /8's have been historically been used internally there's no reason they should be handed back. Handing them back would just prolong the migration to IPv6 for limited benefit.
I imagine the only reason you would use a IPv6 private address is if you didn't have allocated global ones. It's just replacing no chance of collision with some chance of collision.
Re:ARIN down to 1.00 /8 – Akamai got 104.64.0.0/10 yesterday
by waps on Friday April 25, 2014 @02:10AM
(#7644973)
You are defending the broken windows fallacy. Wikipedia can explain better than I do, but the TLDR is simply : you are defending useless destruction of value, the end result is that everyone's poorer, nothing else.
Re:ARIN down to 1.00 /8 – Akamai got 104.64.0.0/10 yesterday
by lmm on Friday April 25, 2014 @05:45AM
(#7645546)
No, just the opposite. There would be real costs for those companies that have /8s to move away from them. Meanwhile the gains would be minimal - at best it might allow some organizations to put off moving to IPv6 for a few months.
Re:ARIN down to 1.00 /8 – Akamai got 104.64.0.0/10 yesterday
by zurn on Wednesday April 23, 2014 @11:49AM
(#7634740)
> As I understand it, IPv6 still has private addresses
Yes, but they were a late addition, postdating IPv6 by 10 years, and aren't meant to be used lightly.
IPv6 is designed for easy & automatic renumbering so there's less need to hold on to a specific prefix as an "island of stability".
B) I agree there are inconveniences and complications with using private addresses in ipv4. But it seems to be necessary thrift in the ipv4 world of rapidly expiring address space; using public routable ipv4 addresses for machines which do not communicate with the public internet is perhaps a luxury we can not afford, even in cases where to do otherwise is inconvenient or complicated.