joelja at bogus.com
Mon Sep 17 07:04:01 UTC 2012
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
>> and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
>> though 32 bits was humongous.
> Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
> networks, meaning we could cram it into a /15. So even if we have 10
> /48s at home from different providers, we're still only using a small
> fraction of the first /3. If we get this wrong, we have several more
> /3s to get it right in.
People aren't going to be the big consumers of address space relative to
> You already know this, and I can't really believe that people sat down
> in the 70ties and 80ties and said "there is never going to be more
> than 128 large corporations that need a /8 in IPv4" ?
Emergent phenomena were not (and generaly are not) predicted. 32 bits
was a lot more than 8 which was the previous go around..
> I start to get worried when people want to map 32 bits into IPv6 in
> several places, for instance telling all ISPs that they can have a /24
> so that we can produce IPv4 mapped /56 to end customer, and make this
> space permanent. Temporary is fine, permanent is not.
or the application of semantic meaning to intermediate bits. and yeah
the IPv6 bit field looks a lot smaller when you start carving off it in
24 bit or shorter chunks.
> So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to
> get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
More information about the NANOG