Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 29-mrt-2006, at 20:45, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

I suspect even arrogant engineers can get it right in 8 tries.

They haven't gotten it right in the past century, so I'm not
optimistic about the future.

So how big would you like addresses to be, then?

We currently have 1/8th of the IPv6 address space set aside for global unicast purposes with the idea that ISPs give their customers / 48 blocks. That gives us 45 bits worth of address space to use up. It's generally accepted that an HD ratio of 80% should be reachable without trouble, which means we get to waste 20% of those bits in aggregation hierarchies. This gives us 36 bits = 68 billion /48s. That's several per person inhabiting the earth, and each of those / 48s provides 65536 subnets that have room to address every MAC address ever assigned without breaking a sweat.

What was the problem again?

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]