|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUQw4N+WU3SEHVP7PWC2X6HM23Ycd=qB8VjiqYM8NMHSQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:33:44 -0700 To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Cc: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:11 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote: >> William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> writes: >>> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to 32 bits. Which when you think about it is >>> the same ratio as jumping from 32 bits to 128 bits. >>=20 >> Jumping from 8 bits to 32 bits (1:16mm) is the same ratio as would be >> jumping from 32 bits to 48 bits (also, 1:16mm). >=20 > Hi Rob, >=20 > And yet we're allocating /19's where previously we allocated space > that added up to /7's and /48's where previously we allocated /24's. > My math may be flawed but the pattern is there all the same. Not exactly... We're allocating /16s and/or /20s where previously we allocated space that added up to /7's, but, the holders of the /7s were coming back for = more and more on a regular basis. I don't believe anyone holding a /16 or /20 of IPv6 has come back for another allocation at all and I would be = surprised if such an organization were to do so in the next 5 years or so. We're allocating /48s where previously we allocated roughly /16-/24. Any effort at making direct comparisons between IPv4 and IPv6 number = utilization is flawed because there is, by definition, nothing approximating a = simple ratio between the two. >=20 >=20 >> Going from 32 bits to 128 bits is 1:79228162514264337593543950336 = which >> is not even remotely the same ratio. >=20 > You know enough about IPv6 to realize that we didn't go from 32 bits > to 128 bits, we went from either 24ish bits to 48 or 28ish bits to 64, > depending on how you look at it. While IPv6 is capable of working the > same as IPv4, that's not how we're actually using it. Both of those estimates are also flawed. > More, growth has not been linear since IPv4's advent and is not (by > anyone reasonable) projected to be linear or sub-linear in IPv6. > Computing a linear ratio as if that were representative of the > expected lifetime of the new address space does not paint an honest > picture. Nor does any effort to apply a simple ratio between IPv4 and IPv6. There are sufficient differences in the allocation algorithms and = counting methods between the two that an apples to apples comparison of = allocation policies simply isn't possible. Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |