nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:38:51 +0000
Bill, You are correct. As a double check, I divided 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 by 4294967296, getting 79228162514264<tel:79%20228%20162%20514%20264>337593543950336<tel:337%20593%20543%20950%20336>, which is 28.8 orders of magnitude :) -mel On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:58 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us<mailto:bill () herrin us>> wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org<mailto:mel () beckman org>> wrote: I won’t do the math for you, but you’re circumcising the mosquito here. We didn’t just increase our usable space by 2 orders of magnitude. It’s increased more than 35 orders of magnitude. Hi Mel, The gain is just shy of 29 orders of magnitude. 2^128 / 2^32 = 7.9*10^28. There are 2^128 = 3.4*10^38 IPv6 addresses, but that isn't 38 "orders of magnitude." Orders of magnitude describes a difference between one thing and another, in this case the IPv4 and IPv6 address spaces. Using a /64 for P2P links is no problem, really. Worrying about that is like a scuba diver worrying about how many air molecules are surrounding the boat on the way out to sea. It's not a problem, exactly, but it cuts the gain vs. IPv4 from ~29 orders of magnitude to just 9 orders of magnitude. Your link which needed at most 2 bits of IPv4 address space now consumes 64 bits of IPv6 address space. Then we do /48s from which the /64s are assigned and we lose another 3 or so orders of magnitude... Sparsely allocate those /48s for another order of magnitude. From sparsely allocated ISP blocks for another order of magnitude. It slips away faster than you might think. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com<mailto:herrin () dirtside com> bill () herrin us<mailto:bill () herrin us> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Current thread:
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing, (continued)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing UpTide . (Dec 19)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing valdis . kletnieks (Dec 19)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Owen DeLong (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing valdis . kletnieks (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Anthony Newman via NANOG (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Owen DeLong (Dec 21)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing William Herrin (Dec 21)
- Waste will kill ipv6 too Mike (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mel Beckman (Dec 20)
- RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too Keith Medcalf (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jason Iannone (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too ops . lists (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Christopher Morrow (Dec 21)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jima (Dec 22)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Jimmy Hess (Dec 21)