[137395] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Feb 11 22:33:59 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1297480732.25439.34.camel@karl>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:31:56 -0800
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:56 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I think that it will not be long
>> before the internet is an IPv6 ocean with islands of IPv4
>
> My company made up some t-shirts for a conference last year. We
> brainstormed the texts. I ended up with a sort of haiku:
>
> out of the puddle
> into the ocean
> IPv6
>
> Sadly I realised too late that it should have had a footnote: "not to
> scale" :-)
True.
If you want to compare masses, IPv4 = 7 liters of water.
IPv6 = EARTH, including all rocks, trees, oceans, lakes, puddles,
etc.
Put another way, if subnets (IPv4 /24s, IPv6 /64s) were
Almond M&Ms, IPv4 would cover approximately 70 yards
of a regulation American Football field in a single layer of
M&Ms.
IPv6 would fill the great lakes. All of the great lakes.
To the rim.
In terms of host addresses per subnet, IPv4 gives you
a large bag of M&Ms. IPv6 gives you the great lakes
full of M&Ms. All of the great lakes. To the rim.
Owen
Disclaimer: Do not attempt to eat a /64 worth of any form of M&Ms
as adverse health results are likely.
