[182240] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 14 00:22:25 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <55A446BD.6000605@ttec.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:22:03 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
How so?
There are 8192 /16s in the current /3.
ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming =
32 end-sites per person
can=E2=80=99t really be all that many=E2=80=A6
25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP.
7,000,000,000 * 32 =3D 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 =3D 1,792 total =
/16s consumed.
Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and =
I=E2=80=99m still alive
when we do, I=E2=80=99ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be =
enacted while we
burn through the second /3. That=E2=80=99ll still leave us 75% of the =
address space to work
with on that new policy.
If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, =
let=E2=80=99s talk about
an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it=E2=80=99s =
partner /9 with an
RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT
fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off =
to
waste.
Yeah, I=E2=80=99m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately =
justify a /16.
Owen
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16
>=20
> Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space.
