nanog mailing list archives
Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
From: Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:46:12 -0700
As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a /48, their statement "Here's a /48 that will give you unlimited addresses that you'll never run out of". Therefore we give businesses /60s and residentials /64. If only we could do as suggested here and give everyone a /48, hah. It would be awesome if we could get an AS number but as we're not multihomed, nor big enough to warrant ARIN paying us attention, we're at the mercy of our upstream who also unwilling to part with more than a single ipv4 /24 at a $300/mo surcharge, and forcing us into buying ipv4 subnets that have been randomly blacklisted on sites such as HULU, netflix, or others. I agree with the sentiment that we should have only 48 bits in the networking portion as that does allow a 48bit mac to exist. mac collisions happen so little, that it would make more sense for DAD to step in if it does occur. Most hardware addresses are changeable anyway and should probably be changed if on the same network. I am inexperienced enough to not understand any necessary usefulness of a /64 network mask over a /80. On 28 December 2017 at 18:34, Scott Weeks <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
:: Now think about scaling. Yes :: If the population doubles, we're now down to four spare /3s. :: If that doubled population doubles the number of devices, :: we're down to two spare /3s. If the population doubles :: again, there will be no civilization left, let alone an :: Internet. Etc. So realistically, the current address space :: allocation policies can handle a doubling of the planet's :: population, with each person having a quarter of a million :: addressable nodes. Each node having its own /64 to address :: individual endpoints within whatever that 'node' represents. Space: the final IP frontier These are the voyages of the range of IPv6 Its many-year mission: to explore strange new device implementations; to seek out new planet-covering nano-device applications and new ad-hoc networking technologies; to boldly go via DTN where no internet segment has gone before. <cue space-like music> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? I like that one! :-) scott
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Scott Weeks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Scott Weeks (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Ricky Beam (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Lyndon Nerenberg (Dec 28)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Scott Weeks (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Baldur Norddahl (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Gary Buhrmaster (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Baldur Norddahl (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Michael Crapse (Dec 28)