nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 19:39:57 -0500 (CDT)
When do we run out of MAC addresses? ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel G. Lugo" <israel.lugo () lugosys com> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>, "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 6:45:08 PM Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion On 07/05/2015 06:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 4, 2015, at 23:51 , Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote: Put their IPv4 behind a NAT and a globally routed /56. There, FTFY. :)Or better yet globally routed /48. /56 is still a bad idea. Owen
I've read this many times and am aware it's the standard recommendation. Makes perfect sense for the customer side, as it would be hard for him to subnet properly otherwise. Doesn't seem to make sense at all for the ISP side, though. Standard allocation /32. Giving out /48s. Even if we leave out proper subnet organization and allocate fully densely, that's at most 65,536 subnets. Not a very large ISP. You can say "get more blocks", or "get larger blocks". Sure, let's give each ISP a /24. That lets them have up to 16M customers (and that's still subnetting densely, which sucks rather a lot). Doesn't leave that many allocation blocks for the RIRs to hand out, though. People usually look at IPv6 and focus on the vast numbers of individual addresses. Naysayers usually get shot down with some quote mentioning the number of atoms in the universe or some such. Personally, I think that's a red herring; the real problem is subnets. At this rate I believe subnets will become the scarce resource sooner or later. Sure, in the LAN side we'll never have to worry about address scarcity. But what's the point of having addresses to spare, if it just means you've got to start worrying about subnet scarcity? If the goal was never having to worry about counting anymore, I propose that 128 bits is far too little. Should've gone a full 256 and be done with it. Regards, Israel G. Lugo P.S.: I'm 100% for IPv6 and $dayjob has been fully dual stacked for 10 years now.
Current thread:
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Andrews (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mike Hammett (Jul 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Israel G. Lugo (Jul 08)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mike Hammett (Jul 05)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 05)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mike Lyon (Jul 05)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 05)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mel Beckman (Jul 05)