<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/21/2013 07:14 PM, Craig Askings
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F0DD4A7E-9BED-42B6-A1A1-DC8837D82E8B@askings.com.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div>
<div>On 21/01/2013, at 3:45 PM, Jacob Gardiner <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jacob@jacobgardiner.com">jacob@jacobgardiner.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Might be time for a branch in the email chain for this
next comment - but with ipv6, doesn't it seem a little
wasteful assigning 18 quntillion IPs to my non-technical
mother's ADSL service? Even if she bought 'all of the
things' and connected all of them to <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://myface.com/">myface.com</a>,
we're going to be wasting a lot of resources.. Right? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Ugh not this straw man argument again. The current allocation
policy / best practice is only for <span>2000::/3, if we some
how manage to use that all up. IANA can make a new </span><span>allocation
policy for 4000::/3, 6000::/3, 8000::/3 and so on.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jeff Doyle addressed this issue of conservatism in IPv6 addressing
last year:<br>
<blockquote><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/logic-bad-ipv6-address-management">http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/logic-bad-ipv6-address-management</a><br>
</blockquote>
The IPv4 conservative in me would wholeheartedly agree with him if
subnets were /96 or even /80 instead of /64, but i can't help but
think that burning half of the address space on ludicrously sparse
classful subnets isn't going to come back to bite us. It already
seems to be biting us in the area of switch vendors cutting corners
on chip design:<br>
<blockquote><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/12/ipv6-prefixes-longer-than-64-might-be.html">http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/12/ipv6-prefixes-longer-than-64-might-be.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
Regards,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>