Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-)
Owen On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell <mi...@illuminati.org> wrote: > That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) > that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than the lower > bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always > going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies can help > mitigate this risk, which is something the upper blocks normally adhere too.. > but with the lower blocks its in the hands of the smaller companies and > consumers who don't *always* have the same rigorous standards. > > > On 17/09/12 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: >> On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell <mi...@illuminati.org> wrote: >> >>> <snip> >>>> Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, >>>> giving /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only >>>> have 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out > to a population of >>>> approximately 6 billion people. 2^33 is over 8 billion, so assuming a >>>> population of 2^33, there will be enough IPv6 /48 allocations to cater for >>>> 2^(45-33) or 2^12 or 4096 IPv6 > address allocations per user in the >>>> world." >>> </snip> >> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a >> utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero; yet the upper 48 >> bits are assumed to have zero wastage... >> >> Regards, >> >> aid >> >
