Waste will kill ipv6 too
jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Wed Dec 20 23:15:44 CST 2017
William Herrin wrote:
> It's not a problem, exactly, but it cuts the gain vs. IPv4 from ~29 orders
> of magnitude to just 9 orders of magnitude. Your link which needed at most
> 2 bits of IPv4 address space now consumes 64 bits of IPv6 address space.
> Then we do /48s from which the /64s are assigned and we lose another 3 or
> so orders of magnitude... Sparsely allocate those /48s for another order of
> magnitude. From sparsely allocated ISP blocks for another order of
> magnitude. It slips away faster than you might think.
> Bill Herrin
When you consider that the default starting ISP size is /32, and that is
sufficient to address something less than 64k subscribers, purist style,
in broadest possible theoretical terms the following emerges.
a) ipv6 has one ISP per every 1.x human (enough?), IPv4 has one IP per
every 1.x human (not enough)
b) IPv4 has 64k ISP's capable of servicing 64k customers, IPv6 has 64k
multiples of that.
So that will be one paradigm shift and one order of magnitude
(exponentially speaking) for your total.
There is plenty more to wonder about, for example, will the rest of the
unicast space get Class E'd?
More information about the NANOG