[arin-ppml] how to get a v6 /32 of v4 address space
heather.skanks at gmail.com
Sun May 19 15:07:16 EDT 2019
Pretty sure Bill is well aware of the size of v4 and v6 space.. and the
I mean, he literally wrote the memo on variable length subnetting:
and the size is not actually the point.
Over the last 40 years a lot of decisions were made and there are sunk
costs no matter what. Once upon a time there was an alternative proposed,
that would have put everything not RFC 1918 in LAN's and left the
equivalent of RFC1918 as WAN/interconnect space. My guess is, even at
that time you had people who didn't want to return space/renumber. We
don't know how it would have changed things, or the ramifications (logs,
dos attacks, calea, etc) but it would have been different, and it's an
interesting thought experiment.
Whatever we choose, then, now in the future, there will always be
resistance to change
Return on investment.
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 1:50 PM Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re> wrote:
> In fact a single /64 is not 2^32 more addresses but rather 2^32 times the
> total IPv4 address space.
> The total IPv4 address space is 4 294 967 296.
> An IPv6 /64 is 4 294 967 296 times 4 294 967 296 addresses.
> - Cynthia
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:33 PM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>> Nor to me. A single /64 IPv6 subnet which is the standard LAN assignment
>> has 2^32 more addresses than the TOTAL IPv4 space. While unused IPv4
>> is being sold and pressed into use, and other space belonging to others
>> like 220.127.116.11/8 and 18.104.22.168/8 is being used for private space,
>> the sheer growth of the Internet and networks will get to the point that
>> even this will not be enough.
>> Seventeen /8's were assigned to RIR's in 2010, the year before IANA
>> exhaustion happened. That was 1/13 of the total space available.
>> I have no doubt had space existed in the last eight full years since
>> exhaustion that at least another 136 /8's would have been consumed at
>> same seventeen per year rate, maybe more.
>> While those with legacy elements in their network that prevents these
>> operators from easily adopting IPv6, my guess these operators are but a
>> very small fraction of the total, and likely already has enough IPv4
>> already in use. I understand legacy, as I still have IPX netware on my
>> network for a software program for Adult Basic Education. This is
>> the current COTS software goes no lower than 8th grade, and we still have
>> a need to go below that grade. Workstations are booted off of floppies
>> (more legacy) to access the local Netware Server (controlled by KVM)
>> instead of the more modern stuff. Might make the workstations dual boot
>> the next cycle, as the next generation of machines to be passed down to
>> the learning labs do not have floppies. Also, voicemail computers running
>> DOS. We do use ip based KVM switches (less the "M", unused in DOS) for
>> remote control, and dos based packet drivers and old ISA network cards
>> remote drive access for backup. Even with all this old stuff, we have
>> been doing IPv6 since 2007 due to a Federal requirement to do so.
>> The "IPv4 Market" is not sustainable in the longer run, and my guess is
>> that in another 8 years that the price for IPv4 address will finally rise
>> to the point that it will be cheaper for most operators to adopt IPv6,
>> rather than pay the higher market cost to buy IPv4 from someone else. Of
>> course, some early adopters of IPv6 will take advantage of this increase
>> in market rate by selling off most of their unused IPv4 addresses. I also
>> believe that starting first with residential customers, the assigning of
>> global IPv4 address will become an extra cost option, and maybe some that
>> are really bold will make access to IPv4 an extra cost service, making
>> IPv6 only service their lowest cost tier.
>> Of course, when we reach such a tipping point and the majority of
>> providers are pushing bits mostly using IPv6, market forces will then
>> start taking the price of IPv4 back downward. At the same time some
>> networks might limit or even eliminate support for IPv4 completely. Some
>> like Facebook are already completely IPv6 except at the edge.
>> There are still those that seem to be hanging on for some other protocol
>> other than IPv6. The reality is that development of IPv6 took over ten
>> years, and there will not be any time to develop something else.
>> While IPv6 is not perfect, it is at least as useable as IPv4 and been
>> available in most OS's and routers since 2000 or so. If one wants to
>> their OS in order to use 127/8 and 240/4 just to gain a few addresses
>> is just a fraction of a normal IPv6 single LAN allocation of /64 go
>> However, it will still be likely that you will still at some point be
>> forced to use IPv6 when networks start turning down IPv4 support and your
>> network needs access to these other networks.
>> Albert Erdmann
>> Network Administrator
>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>> On Sun, 19 May 2019, Cynthia Revström wrote:
>> > I have no clue what your point is but an IPv6 /32 is 2^96 IP addresses.
>> > total possible IPv4 address space is 2^32
>> > So your point doesn't make much sense to me.
>> > - Cynthia
>> > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM william manning <
>> chinese.apricot at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ok, so you don't like the "use 127.0.0.0/8" proposal. fine.
>> >> RFC 1918 space is too small. fine.
>> >> IPv6 is too hard. fine.
>> >> Shortly after discussions started on RF 1918, I proposed the following:
>> >> Since NAT exists, direct peering on a global scale will be fairly
>> >> restrictive, one should consider inverting RFC 1918. Use those
>> >> strictly and only for global interconnection/peering.
>> >> This would free up all other IPv4 space to sit behind your NAT and
>> >> in your enterprise networks. Thats almost an entire IPv6 /32 of space
>> >> everyone, without having to migrate to IPv6.
>> >> Problem solved.
>> >> Your welcome.
>> >> /Wm
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> ARIN-PPML
>> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML