Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
On Jul 8, 2015, at 15:34 , Israel G. Lugo <israel.lugo@lugosys.org> wrote:
On 07/05/2015 06:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 4, 2015, at 23:51 , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Put their IPv4 behind a NAT and a globally routed /56.
There, FTFY. :) Or better yet globally routed /48.
/56 is still a bad idea.
Owen I've read this many times and am aware it's the standard recommendation. Makes perfect sense for the customer side, as it would be hard for him to subnet properly otherwise.
Doesn't seem to make sense at all for the ISP side, though. Standard allocation /32. Giving out /48s. Even if we leave out proper subnet organization and allocate fully densely, that's at most 65,536 subnets. Not a very large ISP.
If you’re trying to build a decent sized ISP in a /32, you’re doing it wrong. /32 is not the “standard size” — It’s the MINIMUM size.
You can say "get more blocks", or "get larger blocks". Sure, let's give each ISP a /24. That lets them have up to 16M customers (and that's still subnetting densely, which sucks rather a lot). Doesn't leave that many allocation blocks for the RIRs to hand out, though.
If you really think we have 16.7 Million ISPs on the planet, I think you badly miscounted. In fact, if you think we have 1 million ISPs that have more than 1 million customers, I’d say you’ve badly miscounted something. What am I missing? In terms of ISPs that need to support 16M customers, let’s assume everyone on the planet has 32 ISP subscriptions of some form or another. (work, home, tablet, phone, dongle, whatever… I’m pretty sure 32 is generous). Let’s assume EVERYONE on the planet is connected. That’s 7 Billion * 32 = 224 Billion total customers. Now let’s sparse-allocate 24s at the rate of 4 million customers per /24. 224,000,000,000 / 4,000,000 = 56,000 We need a total of 56,000 /24s to cover the total population. That still leaves us with 16,721,216 /24s. We barely made a dent in the number of /24s. Please explain to me again where the problem is with handing out /48s?
People usually look at IPv6 and focus on the vast numbers of individual addresses. Naysayers usually get shot down with some quote mentioning the number of atoms in the universe or some such. Personally, I think that's a red herring; the real problem is subnets. At this rate I believe subnets will become the scarce resource sooner or later.
I’ve done the math on the prefix side. See above… Clearly you haven’t.
Sure, in the LAN side we'll never have to worry about address scarcity. But what's the point of having addresses to spare, if it just means you've got to start worrying about subnet scarcity? If the goal was never having to worry about counting anymore, I propose that 128 bits is far too little. Should've gone a full 256 and be done with it.
Respectfully, I think that the math above shows that you are not correct in this assertion. Owen
On 07/09/2015 02:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you’re trying to build a decent sized ISP in a /32, you’re doing it wrong. /32 is not the “standard size” — It’s the MINIMUM size.
I've addressed this and most of what you said in my earlier reply to Mike Hammet (00:57:29 UTC). I was going to reply in more detail here but I see you've replied to the other email now as well. I'll just say that I am aware of the math, and I'm not trying to "disprove IPv6" -- nor am I making the typical argument that we will run out of IPv6 addresses.
participants (2)
-
Israel G. Lugo
-
Owen DeLong