Israel, You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. :)
-mel via cell > On Jul 8, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Israel G. Lugo <israel.l...@lugosys.com> wrote: > > > >> On 07/09/2015 02:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Here’s the problem… You started at the wrong end and worked in the wrong >> direction in your planning. >> >> [...get larger allocation...] >> >> We are now left with only 1,041,888 /20s remaining. You still haven’t put a >> dent in it. > > I am aware of the math, and how it can fit. I will concede that a /20 is > sufficient. > > Note, however, the difference in orders of magnitude for typical > allocations. I realize in ARIN side you've got e.g. Comcast with > multiple /20s, but in RIPE that is not so common. My home ISP has 3x > /32s. As I said, default ISP/LIR allocation here is from /32 to /29. > Yes, shorter prefixes can be justified and obtained, but it's not the norm. > > >> It’s not… It’s a great example of how not to plan your address space in IPv6. >> >> However, if we repeat the same exercise in the correct direction, not only >> does each of your end-sites get a /48, you get the /20 you need in order to >> properly deploy your network. You get lots of space left over, and we still >> don’t make a dent in the IPv6 free pool. Everyone wins. > > You basically just said "get a larger allocation"... Which was my point > all along. /32 is not enough, and even /24 could be made much roomier. > > Speaking of IPv6's full potential: we're considering 32 subscriptions > per client. I've read people thinking of things like IPv6-aware soda > cans. Refrigerators. Wearables. Cars and their internal components... > You could have the on-board computer talking to the suspension via IPv6, > and reporting back to the manufacturer or whatnot. > > Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the whole "refrigerators > ordering milk bottles" craze, but hey, it may very well become a thing. > And other stuff we haven't thought of yet. > > My point is: we're changing to a brand new protocol, and only now > beginning to scratch its full potential. Yes, everything seems very big > right now. Yes, 128 bits can be enough. Even 64 bits could be more than > enough. But why limit ourselves? Someone decided (corretly) that 64 > would be too limiting. > > Please don't fall into the usual "you've got more addresses than > atoms"... I've heard that, and am not disputing it. I'm not just talking > about individual addresses (or /48's). > > What I am proposing here, as food for thought, is: what if we had e.g. > 192 bits, or 256? For one, we could have much sparser allocations. Heck, > we could even go as far as having a bit for each day of the month. What > would this be good for? I don't know. Perhaps someone may come up with a > use for it. >
