Where to buy Internet IP addresses
jbates at brightok.net
Tue May 5 15:13:05 CDT 2009
Ricky Beam wrote:
> Yes, we all are. We will all be given a minimum of a /64, while no one
> has a need for even a billionth of that space, and aren't likely to for
> the forseeable future. When they do, *then* give them the space they
> need. Ah, but "renumbering is a pain", you say. That's another of
> those IPv6 fundamentals... renumbering your network is supposed to be
> easy -- prefix delegation and autoconfig makes it all Magic(tm).
Actually, they probably would have stuck to a 64 bit address space and
it was debated. Then it came down to, let's make it a 64 bit network
space, and give another 64 bits for hosts (96 bits probably would have
worked, but someone apparently feels the next bump from 64bit is 128bit
so there we go).
Renumbering, when the system works is a breeze. Of course there are a
billion places where autoconfiguration doesn't work well, and those will
still require effort to renumber.
At least with this method, if Cisco supports DHCPv6 IA_TA option and
proxy-nd similar to how they support IPv4, then a single pool will
handle an entire pop no matter what. I'm sure 32bit host addressing
would have been fine too, but then we're stuck with that 96bit value
that no one likes.
More information about the NANOG