A crazy idea

Joe Maimon jmaimon at jmaimon.com
Thu Jul 29 21:06:26 UTC 2021

tim at pelican.org wrote:
> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" <list at satchell.net> said:
>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
>> governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
>> /96, /104 or even /112 allocations if they could get them.  (Just how
>> many light bulbs, fridges, toasters, doorbells, phones, &c does SOHOs
>> have?)  I would *not* like to see "us" make the same mistake with IPv6
>> that was made with IPv4, handing out large blocks of space like so many
>> pieces of M&M or Skittles candy.
> Nay, nay, and thrice nay.  Don't think in terms of addresses for IPv6, think in terms of subnets.  I can't stress this enough, it's the big v4 to v6 paradigm shift - don't think about "how many hosts on this net", think about "how many nets".

Think of how many large ISP's a /3 of ipv6 effectively holds, assuming 
that /48 per customer is the norm, and /24 up to /12 assignments for 
those ISP's is also.

In those terms IPv6 isnt that much bigger.

More information about the NANOG mailing list