Rob Seastrom rs at
Tue Dec 3 04:11:00 UTC 2013

"Ricky Beam" <jfbeam at> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs at> 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 mailing list