It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

Justin M. Streiner streiner at
Mon Aug 18 16:28:36 CDT 2008

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like 
>> wasting addresses :)
> That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
> For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers generally have 
> a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning: for a customer that 
> only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not feasible to create a 
> separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of addresses. But invariably, 
> these customers on shared subnets grow, so over time the logical subnet 
> gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks that are shared by a relatively 
> large number of customers, and because of resistance to renumbering, it's 
> impossible to fix this later on.

I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.  My
earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.  In 
that case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or 
at the maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.


More information about the NANOG mailing list