[154920] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 17 00:31:31 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1342492536.6281.149.camel@karl>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:28:18 -0700
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 16, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
>> Each site gets a /48. Even the ones with less than 200 people.
>> [...]
>> Which is *boring*. Nothing novel, no breaking out of "IPv4 think"
>> aside from massively wasting address space.
>=20
> It's only a waste if you get nothing for it. By using /64 everywhere =
you
> get a more homogeneous network, easier to administer, manage, =
document,
> maintain... There are similar advantages, writ larger, to using /48 =
for
> every site.
>=20
It's also a waste if you don't ever use the address and the protocol =
gets deprecated
before a significant percentage of the addresses are allocated.
Earlier in this thread, I did the math showing how it will likely, even =
with very liberal
allocation policies, be 100 years or more before we allocate 1/40th of =
the total
IPv6 space to RIRs.
> Whether you have 2, 20, 200, 2000 or 20,000 hosts in a /64 subnet, you
> have still only used 0% of it, to a dozen or more decimal places.
> IPv4-think says that's a waste. IPv6-think says "great - all my =
subnets
> are large enough". Resizing IPv4 subnets is common; resizing IPv6
> subnets will be rare.
>=20
> IPv4-think is conserving addresses. IPv6-think is conserving subnets. =
We
> don't buy dining chairs based on the number of atoms in them - we buy
> enough to seat the people who need seating.
>=20
Exactly.
Owen
