Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications

[Gert Doering <gert@space.net>]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:21:02PM +0200, Eric Klein wrote:
> >A nice property of IPv6 is that you have effectively infinite addresses on
> >a link.   You don't have to resize links like you do in IPv4 today.  You
> >don't need to worry about 'lost' space.
> 
> True, but as history has shown "inifinate" addresses of IPv4 were not as 
> unlimited as had been hoped. 

The number of magnitude diffence between 2^32 and 2^128 is fairly
significant.

> I would not hold the draft for this, but I 
> wonder what we will all be saying in another 10-15 years when we all need 
> fixed addresses for 100 appliances and who knows what else for each of the 
> 10+ billion people of the world.

We're talking about address wastage on a given link here - out of the
2^64 addresses available *per link*.

So yes, even if you waste half of them, you still have 2^63 addresses 
- that's about 2^54 times more than you need for "100 appliances".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  98999

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234