Where to buy Internet IP addresses
swmike at swm.pp.se
Sun May 3 17:34:20 CDT 2009
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> Oh! You mean, like the way we piss away IPv4 addresses?
> That's pretty much what I'm thinking of. I'm sure that, had their been a
> NANOG at the time IPv4 was being rolled out, there would have been an
> equivalent discussion, except substitute /8 for /48, and probably site for
> end user -- but the arguments, I'm sure, would have been the same, and they
> would have sounded just as rational to the participants then, too.
> In fact, there are probably people on this list now who *were* around when
> the initial IPv4 addressing policies were thought up...
We shouldn't waste the IPv6 addresses, but giving each end user a /56
isn't wasteful. It's even less than the protocol was designed for, and
there is nobody who has conceived so far how this would be a problem
before we've even used up 1/(2^16) of the available space and we can fix
any problem seen by then with 65536 times more addresses to use in a less
Crippling IPv6 by just giving people a /64 isn't helping anybody, it's
just delaying and complicating the IPv6 rollout to end users. We should
make sure people are used to the fact to have routing in their home (or at
least the possibility to do so).
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
More information about the NANOG