[165957] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Sep 26 16:35:14 2013
In-Reply-To: <524496AA.5070705@bitfreak.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:34:20 -0400
To: Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Darren Pilgrim <nanog@bitfreak.org> wrote:
> That's just it, I really don't think we actually have an exhaustion risk
> with IPv6. IPv6 is massive beyond massive.
Hi Darren,
At one point, I saw a proposal to allocate IPv6 /15's to ISPs. One /16
so they could overlay 32 bits of IPv4 using 6rd and deliver a /48 per
ipv4 address and the other /16 for their native IPv6 operation,
packaged as a /15 so they wouldn't need multiple routes.
Yeah.
So if we let ourselves assign addresses carelessly we could run out in
the first half of this century. And while the plan above didn't fly,
IPv6 /19's and /22's have been allocated already.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
