[121807] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Jan 27 16:29:37 2010
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2sk9rsobb.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:29:03 +1300
To: nanOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 28/01/2010, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large =
enough
>>>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
>>>> largest of organisations.
>>> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
>>> to assign.
>> Would you clarify? Seriously?
>=20
> we used to think we were not short of class B networks
We also used to have a protocol with less total addresses than the =
population of the planet, let alone subnets.
In 2000::/3, assuming we can use 1 in every 4 /48s because, well, I'm =
being nice to your point, we still have 1300 /48s per person.
=
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3D%28%282%5E45%29%2F4%29%2Fearth+popu=
lation
And that's /48s.
What if say 50% of the address space is /48s and 50% of the address =
space is /56s?
Then we have 675,000 networks per person.
If we botch that up then we've done amazingly badly.
Then we'll move on to 4000::/3.
--
Nathan Ward
