[156401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 17 14:23:16 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <505729C7.3030605@illuminati.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:22:01 -0700
To: John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste =
will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-)
Owen
On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org> wrote:
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell <mitch@illuminati.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> <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...
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>> aid
>>=20
>=20
