Couple of additional comments while the v4v6coexistence meeting is on break
:) ...
>It doesn't hurt to be moderate (not stingy) but it could hurt to be overly
>generous when utilizing addresses. If we can plan our subnet use with
>accurate technical aspects and assign according to what is a likely need
and
>room for growth then there shouldn't be any issues with waste or shorting a
>user.
I agree that moderation is not a bad thing, as long as we also provide for
future capabilities rather than stifling/restricting them. That is why I
fully support the /56 "small-office / home-office" sized allocation.
>More to the point, what would a individual household do with Avogadro's
>number worth of IPv6 addresses (2^80 = 1.2x10^24)? This seems extremely
>wasteful.
Using that logic, how many enterprises need 2^80 hosts either?
In fact, how many galaxies need that many hosts??
Not to be overly blunt, but from the IETF's consensus this is not quite the
right way to think about it ...
The 64b IID space is not meant to encourage 2^64 hosts per segment.
(Good luck trying, though!)
It is meant to serve as a relatively consistent boundary between the
network (prefix) and host (IID) parts of the address.
So, a /48 is really 2^16 network segments, each supporting the
"appropriate" number of hosts.
64k networks may be a bit much for the average home as well,
hence the /56s.
256 may be a bit much FOR NOW, but the goal is to provide
for future flexibility & capability.
(BTW - This is why I don't like presenting IPv6 as a great big flat 128b
space ... rather, as 2^64 networks (give or take, admittedly some loss there
for reserved ranges, multicast, etc.) ... each of which can support the
right number of hosts for that given deployment. )
/TJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
