AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
rs at seastrom.com
Tue Dec 3 04:11:00 UTC 2013
"Ricky Beam" <jfbeam at gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
> *is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256
> networks when they're only ever likely to use one or two (or maybe
> four), is intentionally wasting space you could've assigned to
> someone else. (or **sold** to someone else :-)) IPv6 may be huge to
> the power of huge, but it's still finite. People like you are
> repeating the same mistakes from the early days of IPv4...
There's finite, and then there's finite. Please complete the
following math assignment so as to calibrate your perceptions before
leveling further allegations of profligate waste.
Suppose that every mobile phone on the face of the planet was an "end
site" in the classic sense and got a /48 (because miraculously,
the mobile providers aren't being stingy).
Now give such a phone to every human on the face of the earth.
Unfortunately for our conservation efforts, every person with a
cell phone is actually the cousin of either Avi Freedman or Vijay
Gill, and consequently actually has FIVE cell phones on active
plans at any given time.
Assume 2:1 overprovisioning of address space because per Cameron
Byrne's comments on ARIN 2013-2, the cellular equipment providers
can't seem to figure out how to have N+1 or N+2 redundancy rather
than 2N redundancy on Home Agent hardware.
What percentage of the total available IPv6 space have we burned
through in this scenario? Show your work.
More information about the NANOG