3 ms·
There is no address allocation scheme that would force you to use NAT on IPv6. A lot of people don't really understand exactly what moving from 32bit to 128-bi
by Tuna-Fish 7y ago
There is no address allocation scheme that would force you to use NAT on IPv6.
A lot of people don't really understand exactly what moving from 32bit to 128-bit addresses means.
Let's say that we waste 65535/65536, or about 99.9985% of IPv6 address space on pointless allocations, leaving only one /16 left. This still means there are 5 192 296 858 534 827 628 530 496 329 220 096 addresses left to allocate, or 5*10^30, or enough addresses that if we had to distribute them to a trillion people per planet living on a trillion planets, they'd still get 5 billion addresses per person.
- gorgoiler 7y agoPart of demystifying IPv6 was that in practice the most significant 64 bits are the limiting factor. It helped me to put more manageable numbers on things. Each ISP can have 65k customers who are big orgs with complex site needs and a /48, or 4 billion small customers getting a bundle of individual networks on their /56. In the latter, each has address space for, say, 256 VLANs which allows network isolation of many internet enabled fridges. And in theory the current scheme allows for 16 million ISPs to exist, though in practice not all the address space is available.