Yup. Seen/Heard all that. Even tooted that horn for a while. /64 is an artifical boundary - many/most IANA/RIR delegations are in the top /32 which is functionally the same as handing out traditional /16s. Some RIR client are "bigger" and demand more, so they get the v6 equvalent of /14s or smaller. Its the _exact_ same model as v4 in the previous decade. With the entire waste in the bottom /64.
Its tilting at windmills, but most of the community has "drunk the koolaide" on wasteful /v6 assignment. What a horrific legacy to hand to our children (and yes, it will hit that soon) /bill On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:18:50PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > On 9/26/2013 1:07 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > >On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim <na...@bitfreak.org> > >wrote: > > > >>On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > >>>sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4... > >> > >>The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space > >>exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too small for such large > >>thinking. > > > >The first dicussion I could find about ipv4 runnout in email > >archives is circa 1983 > > > >>IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such allocation policies. > > > >There are certain tendencies towards profligacy that might > >prematurely influence the question of ipv6 exhaustion and we should > >be on guard against them allocating enough /48s as part of direct > >assignments is probably not one of them. > > That's just it, I really don't think we actually have an exhaustion risk > with IPv6. IPv6 is massive beyond massive. Let me explain. > > We have this idea of the "/64 boundary". All those nifty automatic > addressing things rely on it. We now have two generations of hardware > and software that would more or less break if we did away with it. In > essence, we've translated an IPv4 /32 into an IPv6 /64. Not great, but > still quite large. > > Current science says Earth can support ten billion humans. If we let > the humans proliferate to three times the theoretical upper limit for > Earth's population, a /64 for each human would be at about a /35's worth > of /64's. If we're generous with Earth's carrying capacity, a /36. > > If we handed out /48's instead so each human could give a /64 to each of > their devices, it would all fit in a single /52. Those /48's would > number existance at a rate of one /64 per human, one /64 per device, and > a 65535:1 device:human ratio. That means we could allocate 4000::/3 > just for Earth humans and devices and never need another block for that > purpose. > > That's assuming a very high utilisation ratio, of course, but really no > worse than IPv4 is currently. The problem isn't allocation density, but > router hardware. We need room for route aggregation and other means of > compartmentalisation. Is a 10% utilisation rate sparse enough? At 10% > utilisation, keeping the allocations to just 4000::/3, we'd need less > than a single /60 for all those /48's. If 10% isn't enough, we can go > quite a bit farther: > > - 1% utilisation would fit all those /48's into a /62. > - A full /64 of those /48's would be 0.2% utilisation. > - 0.1%? We'd have to steal a bit and hand out /47's instead. > - /47 is ugly. At /52, we'd get .024% (one per 4096). > > That's while maintaining a practice of one /64 per human or device with > 65535 devices per human. Introduce one /64 per subnet and sub-ppm > utilisation is possible. That would be giving a site a /44 and them > only ever using the ::/64 of it. > > Even with sloppy, sparse allocation policies and allowing limitless > human and device population growth, we very likely can not exhaust IPv6.
