In message <4d4c0d25.70...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes: > > > On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Given http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-the > re/ > > it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the resourc > e > > is just as finite as the one we ran out yesterday. > > That's not what the author says. It says, IPv6 is only somewherein the > range of 16 million to 17 billion times larger than IPv4.
And the author gets it wrong. > Let's be realistic. A /32 (standard small ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 > single IP. No, a /48 is equivalent to a single IP. You loose a little bit with small ISPs as their minimum is a /32 and supports up to 64000 customers. The bigger ISPs don't get to waste addresses space. And if a small ISP is getting space from a big ISP it also needs to maintain good usage ratios. > A /28 (medium ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /28. A /24 (high > medium, large ISP) is equiv to an IPv4 /24. A /16 (a huge ISP) is equiv > to an IPv4 /16. Get the picture? > > So, I currently route a /16 worth of deaggregated IPv4 address space > (sorry, allocation policy fault, not mine). There is NEVER a time that I > will be allocated an IPv6 /16 from ARIN. Heck, the most I'll ever hope > for is the current proposal's nibble boundary which might get me to a > /24. I'll never talk to ARIN again after that. > > > Jack > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
