[136764] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Fri Feb 4 18:11:51 2011
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:28:53 MDT."
<4D4C0D25.70408@brightok.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:11:34 +1100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <4D4C0D25.70408@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
>
>
> On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-the
> re/
> > it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resourc
> e
> > 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.
And the author gets it wrong.
> Let's be realistic. A /32 (standard small ISP) is equiv to an IPv4
> single IP.
No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP.
You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32
and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to
waste addresses space. And if a small ISP is getting space from
a big ISP it also needs to maintain good usage ratios.
> 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
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
