Waste will kill ipv6 too

Thu Dec 28 18:12:34 UTC 2017

On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote:
> Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
> If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
> addresses.

After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why 
we're back to having to do NAT again, even though we now have a 
practically endless supply of integers.  If we could have all agreed to 
just do /64+/48 to every edge host/router, no questions asked, we'd 
never have to talk about this again.  Playing tetris with addresses had 
to be done with IPv4 but it's not even remotely a concern with IPv6 - 
the idea of waste and sizing networks is a chore that doesn't need to be 
thought about anymore.  As you say, if you have a /64, you could run the 
entire internet with it, if you really wanted to do the kinds of hacks 
we've been doing with v4, but the idea is that you don't need to do any 
of that.

-Laszlo

>
> On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez <octalnanog at alvarezp.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
>>>> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
>>>> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,
>>>> you are told to "just use a /64' for your point to points.
>>> Isn't it a /127 nowadays, per RFC 6547 and RFC 6164? I guess the
>>> exception would be if a router does not support it.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Octavio.
>> Best practice used most places is to assign a /64 and put a /127 on the
>> interfaces.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>