nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:02:31 +0100
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero
You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are dealing with. Instead of thinking of 128 bits of addressing space, we talk about 64 bits of subnet space. So your statement comes down to: "it seems a tad unfair that the bottom 16 bits are squandered away". This is a more difficult argument to make. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance John Levine (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Matthew Kaufman (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Randy Bush (Sep 17)
- RE: IPv6 Ignorance Tomas L. Byrnes (Sep 28)
- RE: IPv6 Ignorance John R. Levine (Sep 28)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance George Herbert (Sep 28)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Jason Leschnik (Sep 28)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Adrian Bool (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance John Mitchell (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Owen DeLong (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Nick Hilliard (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Adrian Bool (Sep 17)
- RE: IPv6 Ignorance Mike Simkins (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Adrian Bool (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance joel jaeggli (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Blake Dunlap (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Mark Blackman (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Owen DeLong (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Owen DeLong (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Matthew Kaufman (Sep 17)
- Re: IPv6 Ignorance Owen DeLong (Sep 17)