Re: IPv6 Ignorance

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address 
space. ;-)

Owen

On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell <mitch () illuminati org> wrote:

> That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to 
> stricter standards than the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always going 
> to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies can help mitigate this risk, which is something the upper 
> blocks normally adhere too.. but with the lower blocks its in the hands of the smaller companies and consumers who 
> don't *always* have the same rigorous standards.
>
>
> On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
> > On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell <mitch () illuminati org> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means 
> > > > that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out > to a population of 
> > > > approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough 
> > > > IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 > address allocations per user in the world."
> > > </snip>
> > It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely 
> > approximating  zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > aid