Huh?
I’m saying they are network identifiers and not something else (like POP names,
or geographical indexes,
or inventory control numbers, or crypto currency or whatever else).
So I’m not sure I understand your point here.
Owen
> On Jan 2, 2018, at 15:58 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue,
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I agree we all have a responsibility to hold the line on addresses being
> network identifiers
Hi Owen,
The delicious irony here is that EUI-64 supporting SLAAC is exactly that:
an identifier. If we hold the line there, there is no line.
Re
I agree we all have a responsibility to hold the line on addresses being
network identifiers and to some extent network locators (unfortunately). I
agree we have a responsibility to sparsely and liberally allocate within reason
(where /8 to ITU isn’t within reason, but a /12 might be, and even i
On January 1, 2018 at 22:09 trel...@trelane.net (Andrew Kirch) wrote:
> Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate
> MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80
> years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die.
>
Lets say the worst case scenario is that we exhaust IPv6 at a rate
MASSIVELY higher than planned. Can't we all just do this again in like 80
years? I don't get why anyone cares so much that this thread won't die.
Speaking of dying, I'll be dead by then anyway.
Andrew
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 11
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:36:32 +0900, Randy Bush said:
> thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
"The Yale Book of Quotations quotes an I.B.M. source that this '... is a
misunderstanding of remarks made at I.B.M.'s annual stockholders meeting on
April 28, 1953. In re
> If anyone wants to TL;DR
moe: 2^128 is effectively infinita
larry: we thought 2^32 was effectively infinite
curly: we'll never need more than 640k
thomas watson: i think there is a world market for maybe five computers
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 06:42:46AM -0800, Stephen Satchell said:
> On 12/29/2017 09:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new
> >information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent.
> >get a life!
>
>I no longer use KillThr
On 12/29/2017 09:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new
information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent.
get a life!
I no longer use KillThread. Instead, I sort my inbox by subject, and
use the Delete key liberally. NANOG is
Den 30/12/2017 kl. 03.30 skrev Scott Weeks:
--- baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Baldur Norddahl
Nobody needs to worry...Historically we spent...
--
Out of context, but yeah that.
scott
Not to worry, I thought about what to do if we run out
Giving each nanobot a pair of /64s would be absurd. Maybe they aren’t all on
the same link (there are no broadcast domains in IPv6), but likely a few /64s
would cover each person.
Owen
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 18:31, Michael Crapse wrote:
>
> And if a medical breakthrough happens within the ne
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:11, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- jlightf...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Lightfoot
>
> Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an
> argument between people who understand big
> numbers and those who don't.
>
>
> No, not ex
the good thing about these long threads, which have ZERO new
information, is having a KillThread command in one's mail user agent.
get a life!
--- br...@ampr.org wrote:
From: Brian Kantor
Just how many nanobots can dance on the head of a pin?
---
2^128? Just guessing. >;-)
scott
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Stop thinking in terms of people. Think in
> terms of huge numbers of 'things' in the
> ocean, in the atmosphere, in space, zillions
> of 'things' on and around everyone's bodies
> and homes and myriad other 'things' we can't
> even imagine r
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 02:46:49AM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> (the time has finally arrived)
> Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/865/
Just how many nanobots can dance on the head of a pin?
- Brian
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Crapse wrote:
> And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots
> that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair
> your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6
> is a good idea
And if a medical breakthrough happens within the next 30 years? Nanobots
that process insulin for the diabetic, or take care of cancer, or repair
your cells so you don't age, or whatever, perhaps the inventor things ipv6
is a good idea for such an endeavour. a nanobot is microns wide, and there
wil
--- baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Baldur Norddahl
Nobody needs to worry...Historically we spent...
--
Out of context, but yeah that.
scott
Nobody needs to worry. I promise to reserve the last /32 out of my /29
assignment. When the world has run out of addresses, I will start to sell
from my pool using the same allocation policy that was used for IPv4. I
would consider a /64 to be equal a /32 IPv4 address. This would make a /56
assignm
I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
Go ahead. Just don't use anybody else's addresses to do it. :)
-mel
On Dec 29, 2017, at 4:52 PM, John Lightfoot
mailto:jlightf...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument between people who
understa
--- jlightf...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Lightfoot
Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an
argument between people who understand big
numbers and those who don't.
No, not exactly. It's also about those that
think in current/past network terms an
Excuse the top post, but this seems to be an argument between people who
understand big numbers and those who don't. IPv4 has 2^32 addresses, IPv6 has
2^128, which means 79 octillion people can each have their own internet. I
think Owen is being modest when he says no one alive will be around
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, wrote:
> It's rather interesting how parsing of variable length addresses was
> thought to be way too complicated - while parsing of IPv6 extension
> header chains of unknown length was okay.
>
IIRC, IPv6 extension headers are optional. The router does have to ch
Owen DeLong wrote:
> fast routers mostly don’t parse those chains.
...unless they need to access the L4 header information in order to
create useful hashes to load balance over LAG or ECMP bundles, or
implement any sort of filtering, or RE / control plane policing.
But outside these corner cases,
On Dec 29, 2017, at 02:27, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize
>>> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with
>>> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2
>>> lengths were immediatel
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 18:54, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we
>> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply
>> it by roughly 4 billion.
>
>
>>> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize
>>> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with
>>> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2
>>> lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.)
>> Actually, that got heaved
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It's rather interesting how parsing of variable length addresses was
thought to be way too complicated - while parsing of IPv6 extension
header chains of unknown length was okay.
I think this can be explained by "routers don't need to parse extens
> > My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize
> > IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with
> > a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2
> > lengths were immediately implemented (4 and 16.)
>
> Actually, that got heave
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 4:21 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
>> PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests
>> upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf
>> of the downstrea
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests
> upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf
> of the downstream device and any prefixes it will be allocating itself.
OK, I obvious
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 2:51 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said:
>
>> I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is
>> there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a
>> small or medium business
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> Comcast is passing out CPE that provides a subnet for the actual subscriber,
> and another one for *other* Comcast roaming customers. And somehow this
> works for a company the size of Comcast without the customers needing to know
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:41:57 -0500, "Chuck Church" said:
> If we'd just put a stake in the ground and say residences can have one
> router and bridge everything below that we'd be further ahead. I just can't
> see 99.999% of users being interested in subnetting their homes and writing
> firewall
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said:
> I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is
> there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a
> small or medium business will have any chance of using 4096 /64s?
They won't burn 4096 consecut
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:54:46 -0500, "Ricky Beam" said:
> Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks with
> multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them
> up, and there's little technical need for it.
And yet, my Lede-based router burned up 5
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Brock Tice wrote:
>
> Most of our customers only have 2-5 devices. I know this is not the case
> in most of America but we are quite rural and for many people they've
> never had better than 1.5Mbps DSL until we install service at their
> location. Most of them hav
On 28 December 2017 at 20:41, Chuck Church wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ricky Beam
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:55 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
>
> >Eve
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ricky Beam
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:55 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
>Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks wi
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
>
> I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking
> of IP networking for a little while, Just saying...
Nah. This is a useful conversation (and argument) to have.
I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking
of IP networking for a little while, Just saying...
Hi Lyndon, thanks for taking the time to address my questions. Responses
below.
On 2017-12-28 17:57, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote:
>> We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable
>> sparse allocation scheme that would account fo
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> Home networks with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know
> how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it.
Again, you are assuming you know how people will use networks forever.
Stop overthinking things,
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 1:54 pm, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we
>> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply
>> it by roughly 4 billion.
>
> I
>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and
>> we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would
>> multiply it by roughly 4 billion.
> I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
You are totally free to do that if you please, no one
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we
should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would
multiply it by roughly 4 billion.
I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
The
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg
wrote:
On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions
placed upon that address space.
And if some genius comes up with something that burns through all the
IPv6 addres
IPv6 space is being wasted.
We know that much.
No one needs more than 8 bits for site-local global addresses in the
upper 64 (2/3xxx:::::/64) of the address.
I'm about to propose the most harebrained idea NANOG has ever seen.
I feel like supersites are getting more addresses than
Peripherally, it's worth noting that, in far less time then we have not
migrated from IPv4 to IPv6, the UK moved from 7-digit to 11-digit telephone
numbers. If that's not embarrassing ...
--lyndon
On December 28, 2017 at 17:48 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> >>
> > My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific
> > use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s,
> > it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available
> > (
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> All I was trying to say is there're going to be things
> not thought of yet that will chew up address space
> faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's
> essentially inexhaustible. And, I expect, sooner than
> imagined.
If
You should go directly to ARIN, get a proper ISP allocation the size you need
and have your upstream route that.
Owen
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 17:46, Michael Crapse wrote:
>
> As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a
> /48, their statement "Here's a /48 that will
> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out?
>
> I like that one! :-)
>> Seriously.
All I was trying to say is there're going to be things
not thought of yet that will chew up address space
faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's
essentially inexhaustible. And, I ex
> [snip... I hate slash, I hate android, blah balh]
>
> Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half,
> just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as
> big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64 -- and the
> catastrop
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:14:06 -0500, b...@theworld.com said:
> My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize
> IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with
> a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2
> lengths were immediately
> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out?
>
> I like that one! :-)
Seriously. If we run out of networks while handing out /48s, by migrating
everything to HTTPS we can claw back the 16 bit 'port' field in the IP header
and reassign it as part of the 140-bit IPv6.1 address space.
Min
>>
> My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific
> use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s,
> it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available
> (e.g., only to national-level providers as is their mission.)
Why would anyone give
As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a
/48, their statement "Here's a /48 that will give you unlimited addresses
that you'll never run out of". Therefore we give businesses /60s and
residentials /64. If only we could do as suggested here and give everyone a
/48, hah
:: Now think about scaling.
Yes
:: If the population doubles, we're now down to four spare /3s.
:: If that doubled population doubles the number of devices,
:: we're down to two spare /3s. If the population doubles
:: again, there will be no civilization left, let alone an
:: Internet.
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 15:28, Brock Tice wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote:
>> There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your
>> network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for
>> justification and get your /40 or whatever.
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 14:31, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need
>> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet
>> no matter how many or how few machines yo
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> Instead, think about how we can carve up a 2^61 address space (based on the
> current /3 active global allocation pool) between 2^32 people (Earth's
> current population)
Of course, I screwed up the numbers (thanks Javier for pointing
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote:
>
> We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable
> sparse allocation scheme that would account for future growth that
> seemed like the best option.
Could you detail the reasoning behind your allocation scheme? I.e., wha
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 11:24 am, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a
>> 64-bit total
>> address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit
>> subnets a no-br
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half,
> just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as
> big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64
Hi Ricky,
Your math is a l
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg
wrote:
IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your
address space is silly.
And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for
decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made it that much easier.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote:
Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for
a 64-bit total
address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit
subnets a no-brainer.
Incorrect. The original 128 address space was split 80+4
On 2017-12-28 23:28, Brock Tice wrote:
On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote:
There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your network.
That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for justification and
get your /40 or whatever.
We are currently han
On December 28, 2017 at 13:31 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often
> > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128
> > addr
On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote:
> There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your
> network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for
> justification and get your /40 or whatever.
We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 9:31 am, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need
>> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet
>> no matter how many or how few machines you
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
> My problem with the IPv6 addressing scheme is not the waste of 64 bits
> for the interface identifier, but the lack of bits for the subnet id.
> 16 bits (as you normally get a /48) is not much for a semi-large organi-
> zation, and will fo
On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>
> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need
>> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet
>> no matter how many or how few machines you wa
On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need
> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet
> no matter how many or how few machines you want to put on it.
> Before anyone rolls out the argument about
And /48 was chosen as the site size so that we didn’t have to think about that
either. It’s large enough to cover almost all sites with additional /48s to be
provided if you run out of /64s.
Nothing in the last 20+ years has lead me to believe that these decisions were
wrong. In fact NOT fol
Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think.
Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a
64-bit total
address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a
no-brainer.
Owen
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse wrote:
>
> Yes, let's ta
> Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 19:31
> Para: Owen DeLong
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)
>
>On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez wrot
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often
> comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128
> addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion
> (2^32) usable addresse
Barry,
The absence of data is not data :)
-mel beckman
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:05 PM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote:
>
>
>> On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
>>the difference between thinking in terms of 128
>>bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be co
On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
> the difference between thinking in terms of 128
> bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions
>
>
> I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all
> for 2
the difference between thinking in terms of 128
bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions
I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all
for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing
structured assignments wit
On December 28, 2017 at 19:23 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
> IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for
> you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you
> understand that background.
By "IPng" I only meant whatever would foll
IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for
you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you
understand that background.
-mel
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:15 AM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote:
>
>
> Just an interjection but the problem with th
Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often
comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128
addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion
(2^32) usable addresses with IPv4.
We have entire /8s which are sparsely populated so even
dopted choice B.
The pace of technology change makes likely that "Waste will kill ipv6 too” will
be a moot issue by any of the time estimates discussed previously. Any prudent
business will choose “B”. Any other choice from this list would be a waste of
time and money.
See also “Human U
will kill ipv6 too)
On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>> Call this the &#
On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
>>> link with a /30, you are using 2
On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote:
Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
addresses.
After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why
we're back to having to do NA
Octavio Alvarez
Responder a:
Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 18:25
Para: Mike ,
Asunto: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when
Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp.
If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many
addresses.
On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez
> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wr
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez wrote:
>
> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
>> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
>> due to p
On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P
> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6,
> due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,
>
On 2017-12-21 08:58, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jason Iannone
wrote:
M&A plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at
least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide
service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 1
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> >
> > 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around
> > attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite
> as
> > the transition
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around
> attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite as
> the transition technology in use.
> (map the customer to not a /128 in the ds-
Thanks but... that's the most elaborate "no comment" I've ever seen.
Lol... thanks ytti
-Aaron
Current ARIN policy contemplated as much as a /12 per provider and set a cap
there allowing a provider that needed more than that to only get additional /12s
rather than nibble boundary round-ups.
Owen
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 15:07 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 P
Owen DeLong wrote:
200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent
something much more profligate than current policies.
Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to
be avoided. Agreed.
we've run a number conversion / renumbering on
> ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically
> assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen,
> in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the
> examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is ok
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
