[AusNOG] /20 Available

[Paul Gear]

On 01/21/2013 07:14 PM, Craig Askings wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2013, at 3:45 PM, Jacob Gardiner <jacob at jacobgardiner.com 
> <mailto:jacob at jacobgardiner.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 myface.com 
>> <http://myface.com/>, we're going to be wasting a lot of resources.. 
>> Right?
>
> Ugh not this straw man argument again. The current allocation policy / 
> best practice is only for 2000::/3, if we some how manage to use that 
> all up. IANA can make a new allocation policy for 4000::/3, 6000::/3, 
> 8000::/3 and so on.

Jeff Doyle addressed this issue of conservatism in IPv6 addressing last 
year:

    http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/logic-bad-ipv6-address-management

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:

    http://blog.ioshints.info/2012/12/ipv6-prefixes-longer-than-64-might-be.html

Regards,
Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130122/7fc77b50/attachment.html>