Re: ISP customer assignments

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert.E.VanOrmer () frb gov [mailto:Robert.E.VanOrmer () frb gov]
> > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
> > To: nanog () nanog org
> > Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
> >
> > Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
> > issues with routing /48's globally, I think you will find more
> > organizations fighting for /32s or smaller...
>
> Most organizations will still be assigned a /48 (or whatever) from  
> their
> ISP.  Provider-aggregable addressing has no routing scalability  
> problems.
>
>
> > I can see between IPv4 and IPv6 is how much of a pain it is to type  
> > a 128
> > bit address...
>
> I have to agree, here.  Moving between letters and numbers, and having
> to hit "shift" to use the colon wastes valuable keystrokes compared to
> the keypad.  However, compare IPv6 vs IPv4-like numbering:
>
> 2001:db8:f1::1          
> 81.93.35.12.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1
>
> Did I type the right number of zeroes?
I don't know, but, it's not 81.93.35.12...

It's:
32.1.13.184.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1

And that is the correct number of zeroes for 2001:db8:f1::1.

Also, there's no reason the syntax couldn't be made

32.1.13.184.241..1

although that isn't the case today.  However, I believe
that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1
and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so,
32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if
you expanded todays IPv4 notation to accept IPv6 length
addresses.

Owen

> Lee