Waste will kill ipv6 too
James R Cutler
james.cutler at consultant.com
Thu Dec 28 22:44:46 CST 2017
On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Thomas Bellman <bellman at nsc.liu.se> wrote:
> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need
>> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet
>> no matter how many or how few machines you want to put on it.
>> Before anyone rolls out the argument about the waste of a /64 for a point
>> to point link with two hosts on it, please consider that the relative
>> difference in waste between a /64 with 10,000 hosts on it and a /64 with
>> 2 hosts on it is less than the rounding error in claiming that a /64 is
>> roughly 18 quintillion addresses. In fact, it’s orders of magnitude less.
>> We may, someday, wish we had gone to some value of N larger than 128,
>> but I seriously doubt it will occur in my lifetime.
> My problem with the IPv6 addressing scheme is not the waste of 64 bits
> for the interface identifier, but the lack of bits for the subnet id.
> 16 bits (as you normally get a /48) is not much for a semi-large organi-
> zation, and will force many to have a dense address plan, handing out
> just one or a few subnets at a time, resulting in a patch-work of
> allocations. 24 bits for subnet id would be more usable.
There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for justification and get your /40 or whatever.
So, you really have no problem with a default /48 site allocation, just with the fact you must do actual work to justify whatever request you make for a network with many sites, or large sites, or both. It should be obvious that this is actually less work than continually fiddling with “dense address plans”. This is why IPv6 should be less costly to deploy and maintain, using standard templates, than IPv4 ever dreamed of being. Please let it be so,
> Consider e.g. a university or company campus. There are probably at
> least 16 departments, so I would like to use 8 bits as department id.
> Several departments are likely to have offices on more than one floor,
> or in more than one building, so I would like to let them have 4 bits
> to specify location, and then 8 bits to specify office/workplace within
> each location. And allow them to hand out 16 subnets per workplace.
> That adds up to 24 bits. So a /40 would be nice, not a /48.
> Similarly, an ISP that wants a structured address plan, e.g. to encode
> prefecture, city and part of city in the address, will quickly use up
> bits in the customer id part of the address.
More information about the NANOG