nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:50:01 +0000
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/ it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resource is just as finite as the one we ran out yesterday.That's not what the author says. It says, IPv6 is only somewherein the range of 16 million to 17 billion times larger than IPv4.
presuming you don't adhere to the guidelines that insist on the bottom 64 bits being used as a "MAC" address and the top 32 bits being used as an RIR identifier. in reality, IPv6 (as specified by many IETF RFCs and as implemented in lots of codes bases) only has 32 usable bits... just like IPv4.
Let's be realistic. A /32 (standard small ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 single IP. A /28 (medium ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /28. A /24 (high medium, large ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /24. A /16 (a huge ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /16. Get the picture?
sho'huff. the real question is, how will you manage your own 32bits of space? this is a change from the old v4 world, when the question was, how will you manage your (pre CIDR) 8bits (or 16bits, or 24bits) of space?
Jack
I suspect that many people will do stupid things in managing their bits - presuming that there is virtually infinate 'greenfield' and when they have "pissed in the pool" they can just move on to a new pool. the downside... renumbering is never easy - even with/especially with IPv6. --bill
Current thread:
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN, (continued)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Lamar Owen (Feb 03)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Tim Franklin (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Fernando Gont (Feb 02)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Rob Evans (Feb 03)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Fernando Gont (Feb 03)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN George Herbert (Feb 03)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Eugen Leitl (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN bmanning (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 04)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Andrews (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Andrews (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Rob Evans (Feb 03)