[106952] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Aug 18 17:01:44 2008
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808181429550.12939@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:01:22 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
> like wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
generally have a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning:
for a customer that only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not
feasible to create a separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of
addresses. But invariably, these customers on shared subnets grow, so
over time the logical subnet gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks
that are shared by a relatively large number of customers, and because
of resistance to renumbering, it's impossible to fix this later on.
With IPv6 on the other hand, you can easily give each customer their
own prefix which they'll pretty much never grow out of, and not be
forced to artificially keep lots of customers in the same VLAN.
The extra 96 bits do make a difference.
