[156386] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Mitchell)
Mon Sep 17 09:47:47 2012
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: mitch@illuminati.org
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:46:47 +0100
From: John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org>
CC: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <C5505266-4E95-4257-817E-EF97DE8A1B33@logic.org.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big
hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than
the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight
that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and
policies can help mitigate this risk, which is something the upper
blocks normally adhere too.. but with the lower blocks its in the hands
of the smaller companies and consumers who don't *always* have the same
rigorous standards.
On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>> Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out > to a population of approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 > address allocations per user in the world."
>> </snip>
> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero; yet the upper 48 bits are assumed to have zero wastage...
>
> Regards,
>
> aid
>
