[167180] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cutler James R)
Tue Dec 3 00:57:05 2013
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHd7N8P98Y5td6r8HQ6X0F+W0pH0RiHTeGg1P_3ezPPbWvRg6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 00:56:40 -0500
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Cc: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_7C6103B4-82F2-49F2-99E5-E984B251C2CB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Eric Oosting <eric.oosting@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> writes:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse
>> 6rd...
>>> ...
>>> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone
>>> *is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256
>>> networks when they're only ever likely to use one or two (or maybe
>>> four), is intentionally wasting space you could've assigned to
>>> someone else. (or **sold** to someone else :-)) IPv6 may be huge to
>>> the power of huge, but it's still finite. People like you are
>>> repeating the same mistakes from the early days of IPv4...
>>=20
>> There's finite, and then there's finite. Please complete the
>> following math assignment so as to calibrate your perceptions before
>> leveling further allegations of profligate waste.
>>=20
>=20
> I know this is rhetorical, but my hobby is answering peoples =
rhetorical
> questions.
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> Suppose that every mobile phone on the face of the planet was an =
"end
>> site" in the classic sense and got a /48 (because miraculously,
>> the mobile providers aren't being stingy).
>>=20
>=20
> Very well, I'll play your silly game.
>=20
> 48 bits remaining.
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> Now give such a phone to every human on the face of the earth.
>>=20
>=20
> 33 bits should do it. That gets us to nearly 9 billion people.
>=20
> 15 bits remaining.
>=20
>=20
>> Unfortunately for our conservation efforts, every person with a
>> cell phone is actually the cousin of either Avi Freedman or Vijay
>> Gill, and consequently actually has FIVE cell phones on active
>> plans at any given time.
>>=20
>=20
> 5 is inconvenient. Lets give everyone 8 mobil phones, using 3 bits.
>=20
> 12 bits remaining.
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> Assume 2:1 overprovisioning of address space because per Cameron
>> Byrne's comments on ARIN 2013-2, the cellular equipment providers
>> can't seem to figure out how to have N+1 or N+2 redundancy rather
>> than 2N redundancy on Home Agent hardware.
>>=20
>=20
> 1 bit for that.
>=20
> 11 bits remaining.
>=20
> Now we're assigning space out of 2000::/3 for now ... lets keep the =
other
> 7/8ths of the ipv6 address block in reserve, using another 3 bits ...
> leaving ... carry the one ... 8 bits.
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> What percentage of the total available IPv6 space have we burned
>> through in this scenario? Show your work.
>>=20
>=20
> If we give every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth the
> equivalent to (16) /48s each, we'll will have used 1/256th of the =
first
> 1/8th of the IPv6 address space.
>=20
> Wolfram says there have been 110 billion homo sapiens that have ever =
lived.
> We need to give every person who has literally ever lived on planet =
earth
> their own /40 before we've used up 2000::/3, and need to move on to =
the
> remaining 87.5% of the address space. (this is where someone will ding =
me
> for the misuse of "literally" somehow with a pointer to theoatmeal =
comic,
> right)
>=20
> -e
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> -r
>>=20
Does this mean we can all get back to solving real IPv6 deployment and =
operations problems?
I certainly hope you all can finally see which is the better business =
choice between:=20
1. Using up to around 10% of IPv6 space to make our network operations =
simpler for the next twenty years or more.
2. Continuing to spend time and money on micromanagement of addressing =
rather than real customer needs.
One who cannot properly understand the business decision here perhaps =
should not be debating network policies.
=97 =93Strongly worded letter to follow."
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com
--Apple-Mail=_7C6103B4-82F2-49F2-99E5-E984B251C2CB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlKdcpgACgkQHzETiNcaVPkJJwCgrly1yu31caxaINi/FeIg1QqO
07YAn2dry9L+SM0PakviI0WLvqV30/9b
=Jl9D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_7C6103B4-82F2-49F2-99E5-E984B251C2CB--
