[136713] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri Feb 4 09:29:01 2011
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:28:53 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110204110304.GP23560@leitl.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
> it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resource
> is just as finite as the one we ran out yesterday.
That's not what the author says. It says, IPv6 is only somewherein the
range of 16 million to 17 billion times larger than IPv4.
Let's be realistic. A /32 (standard small ISP) is equiv to an IPv4
single IP. A /28 (medium ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /28. A /24 (high
medium, large ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /24. A /16 (a huge ISP) is equiv
to an IPv4 /16. Get the picture?
So, I currently route a /16 worth of deaggregated IPv4 address space
(sorry, allocation policy fault, not mine). There is NEVER a time that I
will be allocated an IPv6 /16 from ARIN. Heck, the most I'll ever hope
for is the current proposal's nibble boundary which might get me to a
/24. I'll never talk to ARIN again after that.
Jack
