20 ms·

> If we allocate them in gargantuan blocks, we have the same problem we have now with IPv4 The problem with IPv4 is that when ISP can't get more, so they have

> If we allocate them in gargantuan blocks, we have the same problem we have now with IPv4 The problem with IPv4 is that when ISP can't get more, so they have to put some unlucky users behind a NAT. The company I worked for got /21, but we had way more than 2K simultaneously connected users. And, well, we failed the timing to get another allocation, and (I had left since then) is even more unlikely they'll get one those days. IPv6 solves that by making all the blocks giant. With IPv6, when ISP is allocated /48 and allocates /64 per client - comparing to IPv4, it's like everyone gets a mighty /16 block right from the start, so even a tiniest company can grow to 65K users. And if they grow more, there is no problem in getting another subnet, those are not scarce, too.

ghshephard 11y ago
With IPv6 the smallest allocation an ISP gets is a /32 (and it's pretty easy to get more as the ISP starts to fully utilize that /32). And even a small business can get a /48 from an ISP with almost no questions asked. That means, starting out, a company can grow to 65K networks (each network with effectively unlimited number of nodes on it). And, just as you said, getting another /48 won't be a problem.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Ouch. Yes. Sorry, you're absolutely right, it's /32, not /48. Was sleepy writing that comment and got numbers messed up in my head :) The logic still stands, it's just that problem's solved by just making everything giant.