In fact a single /64 is not 2^32 more addresses but rather 2^32 times the total IPv4 address space.
The total IPv4 address space is 4 294 967 296. An IPv6 /64 is 4 294 967 296 times 4 294 967 296 addresses. - Cynthia On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Nor to me. A single /64 IPv6 subnet which is the standard LAN assignment > has 2^32 more addresses than the TOTAL IPv4 space. While unused IPv4 space > is being sold and pressed into use, and other space belonging to others > like 11.0.0.0/8 and 30.0.0.0/8 is being used for private space, > eventually > the sheer growth of the Internet and networks will get to the point that > even this will not be enough. > > Seventeen /8's were assigned to RIR's in 2010, the year before IANA > exhaustion happened. That was 1/13 of the total space available. > > I have no doubt had space existed in the last eight full years since > exhaustion that at least another 136 /8's would have been consumed at that > same seventeen per year rate, maybe more. > > While those with legacy elements in their network that prevents these > operators from easily adopting IPv6, my guess these operators are but a > very small fraction of the total, and likely already has enough IPv4 > already in use. I understand legacy, as I still have IPX netware on my > network for a software program for Adult Basic Education. This is because > the current COTS software goes no lower than 8th grade, and we still have > a need to go below that grade. Workstations are booted off of floppies > (more legacy) to access the local Netware Server (controlled by KVM) > instead of the more modern stuff. Might make the workstations dual boot in > the next cycle, as the next generation of machines to be passed down to > the learning labs do not have floppies. Also, voicemail computers running > DOS. We do use ip based KVM switches (less the "M", unused in DOS) for > remote control, and dos based packet drivers and old ISA network cards for > remote drive access for backup. Even with all this old stuff, we have > been doing IPv6 since 2007 due to a Federal requirement to do so. > > The "IPv4 Market" is not sustainable in the longer run, and my guess is > that in another 8 years that the price for IPv4 address will finally rise > to the point that it will be cheaper for most operators to adopt IPv6, > rather than pay the higher market cost to buy IPv4 from someone else. Of > course, some early adopters of IPv6 will take advantage of this increase > in market rate by selling off most of their unused IPv4 addresses. I also > believe that starting first with residential customers, the assigning of a > global IPv4 address will become an extra cost option, and maybe some that > are really bold will make access to IPv4 an extra cost service, making > IPv6 only service their lowest cost tier. > > Of course, when we reach such a tipping point and the majority of > providers are pushing bits mostly using IPv6, market forces will then > start taking the price of IPv4 back downward. At the same time some > networks might limit or even eliminate support for IPv4 completely. Some > like Facebook are already completely IPv6 except at the edge. > > There are still those that seem to be hanging on for some other protocol > other than IPv6. The reality is that development of IPv6 took over ten > years, and there will not be any time to develop something else. > > While IPv6 is not perfect, it is at least as useable as IPv4 and been > available in most OS's and routers since 2000 or so. If one wants to hack > their OS in order to use 127/8 and 240/4 just to gain a few addresses that > is just a fraction of a normal IPv6 single LAN allocation of /64 go ahead. > However, it will still be likely that you will still at some point be > forced to use IPv6 when networks start turning down IPv4 support and your > network needs access to these other networks. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Sun, 19 May 2019, Cynthia Revström wrote: > > > I have no clue what your point is but an IPv6 /32 is 2^96 IP addresses. > The > > total possible IPv4 address space is 2^32 > > > > So your point doesn't make much sense to me. > > > > - Cynthia > > > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM william manning < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> ok, so you don't like the "use 127.0.0.0/8" proposal. fine. > >> RFC 1918 space is too small. fine. > >> IPv6 is too hard. fine. > >> > >> Shortly after discussions started on RF 1918, I proposed the following: > >> > >> Since NAT exists, direct peering on a global scale will be fairly > >> restrictive, one should consider inverting RFC 1918. Use those > addresses > >> strictly and only for global interconnection/peering. > >> > >> This would free up all other IPv4 space to sit behind your NAT and > usable > >> in your enterprise networks. Thats almost an entire IPv6 /32 of space > for > >> everyone, without having to migrate to IPv6. > >> > >> Problem solved. > >> > >> Your welcome. > >> > >> /Wm > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ARIN-PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > >> > >_______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
