nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:57:35 +1100
When the IETF decided on 128 bit addresses it was taking into consideration /80 sized subnet. Prior to that it was looking at a 64 bit address size and allocating addresses the IPv4 way with lots of variable sized networks. This was changed to /64 subnets to accomodate 64 bit MAC. After that there was discussion about how many subnet should be enough for 99.99% of sites which gave /48 per site using /64 sized network. That 281474976710656 sites or 35184372088832 out of the /3 we are currently allocating from. Now there are very few sites that need 65536 subnets and those that do can request additional /48’s. Now if you assume the earth’s population will get to 25B, and every person is a site, that still leaves 35159372088832 sites. And if each of those people also has a home and a vehicle, that still leaves 35109372088832 sites. Handing out /48’s to homes was never ever going to cause us to run out of IPv6 space. Even if the homes are are connected to multiple providers there isn’t a issue. Mark
On 21 Dec 2017, at 7:57 am, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:I won’t do the math for you, but you’re circumcising the mosquito here. We didn’t just increase our usable space by 2 orders of magnitude. It’s increased more than 35 orders of magnitude.Hi Mel, The gain is just shy of 29 orders of magnitude. 2^128 / 2^32 = 7.9*10^28. There are 2^128 = 3.4*10^38 IPv6 addresses, but that isn't 38 "orders of magnitude." Orders of magnitude describes a difference between one thing and another, in this case the IPv4 and IPv6 address spaces. Using a /64 for P2P links is no problem, really. Worrying about that islike a scuba diver worrying about how many air molecules are surrounding the boat on the way out to sea.It's not a problem, exactly, but it cuts the gain vs. IPv4 from ~29 orders of magnitude to just 9 orders of magnitude. Your link which needed at most 2 bits of IPv4 address space now consumes 64 bits of IPv6 address space. Then we do /48s from which the /64s are assigned and we lose another 3 or so orders of magnitude... Sparsely allocate those /48s for another order of magnitude. From sparsely allocated ISP blocks for another order of magnitude. It slips away faster than you might think. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing, (continued)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing valdis . kletnieks (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Anthony Newman via NANOG (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Owen DeLong (Dec 21)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing William Herrin (Dec 21)
- Waste will kill ipv6 too Mike (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jason Iannone (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too ops . lists (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jima (Dec 22)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jimmy Hess (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Joe Maimon (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too valdis . kletnieks (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too George Metz (Dec 20)