nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:08:13 -0800
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>wrote:Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses.Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 "networks" (each network being a /64). Presuming that ISPs allocate /64 networks to each connected subscriber, then a /48 is only 65k subscribers, or say around a maximum of 200k IP addresses in use at any one time (presuming no NAT and an average of 3-4 IP-based devices per subscriber) IPv4-style utilization ratios do make some sense under IPv6, but not at the address level - only at the network level.First, it was (mostly) a joke. Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an ISP, but I have a /48 and each subnet is a /64. Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, poorly designed, etc.) ~Seth
Current thread:
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Andrews (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 03)
- IPv6 space (was: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space ) Deepak Jain (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Trey Darley (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Heather Schiller (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Scott Howard (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)
- v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Howard C. Berkowitz (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Message not available
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)