[156403] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 17 14:33:18 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <50573F5C.5090509@matthew.at>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:27:04 -0700
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote:
>> I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
>>=20
>> Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or =
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put =
the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it =
was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per square millimetre of =
the Earth=92s Surface.
>=20
> Yes. But figure an average subnet has, what, maybe 5 hosts on it? =
(Sure, there's some bigger ones, but a whole lot of "my router, my PC, =
and maybe my printer" networks too.
>=20
> So even if you could use all the top bits (which you can't, as many =
combinations are reserved), that's more like 92,233,720,368,547,758,080. =
And if you lop off the top three bits and just count the space currently =
assigned to Global Unicast, that's 11,529,215,046,068,469,760. Which is =
0.02 per square mm of the earth's surface. Or just over 2 per square =
centimeter.
>=20
> Powers of two get big fast... but they get small fast too.
>=20
> Matthew Kaufman
What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 =
addresses per square cm?
Owen
