nanog mailing list archives
RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:10:11 -0500
Good Morning!
-----Original Message----- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras () e-gerbil net] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 05:45 To: Andy Davidson Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 /64s. This is enough to fill over seven Lake Eries. The total amount of ipv6 address space is exponentially larger still - I have just looked at 2000::/3 in these maths. THE IPv6 ADDRESS SPACE IS VERY, VERY, VERY BIG.Don't get carried away with all of that "IPv6 is huge" math, it quickly deteriorates when you start digging into it. Auto-configuration reduces it from 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 to 18446744073709551616 (that's 0.000000000000000005% of the original 128 bit space). Now as an end user you might get anything ranging from a /56 to a /64, that's only between 1 - 256 IPs, barely a significant increase at all if you were to actually use a /64 for each routed IP rather than as each routed subnet. As a small network you might get a /48, so that even if you gave out /64s to everyone it would be only 16 bits of space for you (the equivalent of getting a class B back in IPv4 land), something like a 8-16 bit improvement over what a similar sized network would have gotten in IPv4. As a bigger ISP you might get a /32, but it's the same thing, only 16 bits of space when you have to give out /48s. All we've really done is buy ourselves an 8 to 16 bit improvement at every level of allocation space (and a lot of prefix bloat for when we start using more than 2000::/3), which is a FAR cry from the 2^128 "omg big number, we can give every molecule an IPv6 address" math of the popular imagination. :)
While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the "simple 2^128" math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things: *) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the number of IPv6 network segments available within 2000::/3. *) An end-user should get something between a /48 and a /56, _maybe_ as low as a /60 ... hopefully never a /64. Really. **) Let's call the /48s enterprise assignments, and the /56s home assignments ... ? **) And your /56 to /64 is NOT 1-256 IPs, it is 1-256 segments. **) And, using the expected /48-/56, the numbers are really 256-64k subnets. **) Each segment supporting as many hosts as you want it to. Probably nowhere near 2^64, but that isn't the point :). *) _Any_ ISP gets a /32 by default, a "bigger ISP" can readily get more. So, actually, we have 'bought' ourselves much more space. *) The standard registry allocation is a /12. So within the /3 we have 512 of those. Note: We currently have 5 RIRs. *) A /12 yields 20 bits of /32s. So within any given /12, we have ~1M ISPs. *) The "standard ISP /32" can support 64K Enterprises or 16.7M Homes. **) Oh, and if you need more = just ask. *) Even allowing for inefficiency / room to grow / summarization - I think we are good for quite some time. *) And this is just the first /3. Note: "All we've really done is buy ourselves an 8 to 16 bit improvement at every level of allocation space" *) And you don't think 8-16 bits _AT EVERY LEVEL_ is a bit deal?? **) Remembering that the original address space was 'only' 32bits. **) I guess only supporting 256-64k more registries, each of which can support 256-64k more ISPs, each of which can support 256-64k more customers just isn't that useful to you? *) Additionally - the number of IPs per segment, which is not the same as the number of hosts per segment, is much vaster. The quite common IPv4 /24 being analogous to an IPv6 /64 ... /TJ PS - We also get much more multicast space, Which Is Nice(TM).
Current thread:
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links, (continued)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Larry Sheldon (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Steven Bellovin (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Steven Bellovin (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Rubens Kuhl (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Andy Davidson (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Ryan Harden (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Tim Durack (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Kevin Oberman (Jan 25)