Waste will kill ipv6 too

ops.lists at gmail.com ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Dec 21 15:51:33 CST 2017



	
		
		
	
		A very familiar pattern. Pretty soon, our children will be going to intergalactic governance fora debating v6 exhaustion and dusting off Jim Fleming’s ipv9
-srs
		
		

		—srs
	




On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:48 PM +0530, "Jason Iannone" <jason.iannone at gmail.com> wrote:










M&A plays into this too.  By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at
least 17 million /48s.  How many sites does CenturyLink provide
service to?  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million.


3 acquisitions rolled up into AS209:

as3549
2605:a300::/32
2001:450::/32

as4323
2604:6680::/32
2602:ff99::/36
2620:12e:6000::/40
2620:10e:8000::/40
2620:124:8000::/44
2001:506:8::/48
2620:75::/48
2620:f:4000::/48
2620:3b:4000::/48
2620:c5:4000::/48

as3356
2607:6e00::/32
2606:8a00::/32
2604:3a00::/32
2605:1280::/32
2605:4680::/32
2605:c680::/32
2604:24c0::/32
2602:ffeb::/36
2602:ffe1::/36
2620:109::/40
2620:123:d000::/40
2620:12d:c000::/44
2620:42:4000::/48
2620:87:4000::/48
2620:8d:c000::/48
2620:ba:c000::/48
2620:f8:c000::/48
2604:5200:1007::/48
2620:6:e000::/48

as209
2602::/24
2606:5000::/32
2605:c680::/32
2602:ff5f::/36
2620:123:3000::/40
2620:12e:6000::/40
2620:9c:4000::/44
2620:122:4000::/44
2620:123:b000::/44
2001:428:902::/48
2001:428:7001::/48
2001:428:7004::/48
2001:428:4004::/48
2001:428:3000::/48
2001:428:2403::/48
2001:428:7005::/48
2001:428:939::/48
2001:428:6803::/48
2001:428:5003::/48
2001:428:e203::/48
2001:428:3804::/48
2620:0:2280::/48
2620:0:2b20::/48
2001:428:4c04::/48
2001:428:4c05::/48
2001:428:5004::/48
2001:428:1403::/48
2001:428:1404::/48
2001:428:6804::/48
2001:428:2502::/48
2001:428:2501::/48
2001:428:200c::/48
2001:428:480a::/48
2620:d9:8000::/48
2001:428:5804::/48
2001:428:2406::/48
2001:428:1804::/48
2001:428:2405::/48
2001:428:2408::/48
2001:428:1c03::/48
2001:428:6403::/48
2001:428:1803::/48
2001:428:7009::/48
2001:428:5806::/48
2620:42:4000::/48
2001:428:1405::/48
2001:428:3c03::/48
2001:428:e204::/48
2001:428:e205::/48
2001:428:1806::/48
2001:428:6805::/48
2001:428:1808::/48
2001:428:1809::/48
2001:428:a403::/48
2001:428:4407::/48
2001:428:3807::/48
2001:428:c0c::/48
2001:428:4003::/48
2001:428:4803::/48
2001:428:1003::/48
2001:428:3808::/48
2001:428:30::/48
2620:ac:c000::/48
2001:428:700c::/48
2001:428:5803::/48
2001:428:380b::/48
2001:428:380c::/48
2001:428:380d::/48
2001:428:4403::/48
2001:428:aa03::/48
2001:428:4404::/48
2001:428:2407::/48
2001:428:240b::/48
2001:428:4c09::/48
2001:428:700a::/48
2001:428:c08::/48
2001:428:2004::/48
2001:428:2404::/48
2001:428:7007::/48
2001:428:7405::/48
2001:428:c0b::/48
2001:428:4406::/48
2001:428:c05::/48
2001:428:c06::/48
2001:428:3805::/48
2001:428:4c07::/48
2001:428:2003::/48
2001:428:2005::/48
2001:428:6404::/48
2001:428:7404::/48
2001:428:240a::/48
2001:428:4405::/48
2001:428:4c08::/48
2001:428:2002::/48
2001:428:c09::/48
2001:428:240e::/48
2001:428:4408::/48
2001:428:380e::/48
2001:428:4005::/48
2001:428:4409::/48
2001:428:a404::/48
2001:428:1004::/48
2001:428:8c03::/48
2001:428:9e03::/48
2001:428:3810::/48
2001:428:700d::/48
2001:428:2006::/48
2001:428:6405::/48
2001:428:a405::/48
2001:428:8c04::/48
2001:428:5805::/48
2620:74:c040::/48
2620:6:e000::/48
2001:428:1805::/48
2001:428:b003::/48
2001:428:3c04::/48
2001:428:6400::/48
2001:428:8c00::/48
2001:428:9e00::/48
2001:428:1c00::/48
2001:428:7006::/48
2001:428:4c00::/48
2001:428:2400::/48
2001:428:7008::/48

source: source:
http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/static/dumps/arin-whois-originas.json.bz2

Jason

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> The RIR’s assignment to ISPs assume relatively dense assignment of /48 to customers.  ISPs still have to justify the allocation based on the number of customers sites for shorter than a /32.  RIR assignments to non ISPs are also relatively dense.  If you have multiple sites you don’t need contiguous addresses.
>
> Automatic assignment in homenet does dense assignment.
>
>> On 21 Dec 2017, at 12:27 pm, William Herrin  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
>> Handing out /48’s to homes was never ever going to cause us to run out of IPv6 space.  Even if the homes are are connected to multiple providers there isn’t a issue.
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> No single assignment practice would. Sadly no IPv6 addresses reach your computer directly from IANA. Multiple layers of assignment practices are happen along the way, each with
>> it's own cumulative consumption. Most of those layers were designed with the independent assumption that "we have so many IPv6 addresses, let's just not worry about how many bits are consumed at this step." With a cumulative effect on the consumption of IPv6 space.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: 
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org
>







More information about the NANOG mailing list