Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:29:03 +1300

On 28/01/2010, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
largest of organisations.
That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
to assign.
Would you clarify? Seriously?

we used to think we were not short of class B networks

We also used to have a protocol with less total addresses than the population of the planet, let alone subnets.

In 2000::/3, assuming we can use 1 in every 4 /48s because, well, I'm being nice to your point, we still have 1300 /48s 
per person.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%282%5E45%29%2F4%29%2Fearth+population

And that's /48s.
What if say 50% of the address space is /48s and 50% of the address space is /56s?
Then we have 675,000 networks per person.

If we botch that up then we've done amazingly badly.
Then we'll move on to 4000::/3.

--
Nathan Ward



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]