IPv6 Ignorance

Mon Sep 17 18:22:01 UTC 2012

Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-)

Owen

On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell <mitch at illuminati.org> wrote:

> That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies can help mitigate this risk, which is something the upper blocks normally adhere too.. but with the lower blocks its in the hands of the smaller companies and consumers who don't *always* have the same rigorous standards.
> 
> 
> On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell <mitch at illuminati.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> <snip>
>>>> Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out > to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 > address allocations per user in the world."
>>> </snip>
>> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating  zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage...
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> aid
>> 
> 