[156407] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Beeman, Davis)
Mon Sep 17 15:57:52 2012
From: "Beeman, Davis" <Davis.Beeman@integratelecom.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:57:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <82596E95-9C32-46BB-8B27-CB18290392C0@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <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 quadri=
llion address per square millimetre of the Earth's 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 m=
y printer" networks too.
>=20
> So even if you could use all the top bits (which you can't, as many combi=
nations 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 squ=
are 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 a=
ddresses per square cm?
>Owen
http://xkcd.com/865/
-Davis
