On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov [mailto:Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current issues with routing /48's globally, I think you will find more organizations fighting for /32s or smaller...
Most organizations will still be assigned a /48 (or whatever) from their ISP. Provider-aggregable addressing has no routing scalability problems.
I can see between IPv4 and IPv6 is how much of a pain it is to type a 128 bit address...
I have to agree, here. Moving between letters and numbers, and having to hit "shift" to use the colon wastes valuable keystrokes compared to the keypad. However, compare IPv6 vs IPv4-like numbering:
2001:db8:f1::1 81.93.35.12.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1
Did I type the right number of zeroes?
I don't know, but, it's not 81.93.35.12... It's: 32.1.13.184.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 And that is the correct number of zeroes for 2001:db8:f1::1. Also, there's no reason the syntax couldn't be made 32.1.13.184.241..1 although that isn't the case today. However, I believe that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1 and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so, 32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if you expanded todays IPv4 notation to accept IPv6 length addresses. Owen
Lee