4 ms·

Yeah, but to set up an AAAA record, you still need the IP address. The usability still leaves something to be desired. At least we should never run out of IPv6

Yeah, but to set up an AAAA record, you still need the IP address. The usability still leaves something to be desired. At least we should never run out of IPv6 addresses.

denkmoon 7y ago
If you're setting up a AAAA once, you can deal with the copy paste. If you're updating them a lot, or a lot all at once, you should probably use a dynamic DNS updater.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> At least we should never run out of IPv6 addresses. This is true in terms of the raw total number of IPv6 addresses. Everything I've seen discussing them assumes they'll be assigned hierarchically, though, which is a great way to ensure most of them are never used. Block assignments through a hierarchy can chew through any number of addresses no matter how big the space is.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- waste_monk 7y ago
  Heirarchical assignment allows route summarisation. Imagine how much TCAM you'd need for unsummarized IPv6.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Yes, you're correct. But at the same time hierarchical assignment allows organization, including route summarization, it undermines the argument that there are too many addresses to exhaust. Addresses can easily be (in fact, are guaranteed to be) exhausted by the organizational system without ever being in use. The goals are in conflict.
    - Dagger2 7y ago
      They are being used -- for the purpose of allowing the internet to scale. But yes, we do need to be careful not to assign blocks that are too large. We're doing a good job of this (see any /8s being assigned?). We're also doing allocations only from 2000::/3, and there are five more completely untouched /3s available, so if we do somehow run out of space in 2000::/3 then we can start over with tighter allocation polices... five times over.
- mlyle 7y ago
  As said by others, you need hierarchy to avoid routing tables becoming excessively large-- that's the real limit. Since an IPv6 subnet can hold effectively any number of hosts, and it's easier to give bigger chunks of networks, the chances that a given org needs multiple assignments is much lower. In turn we use that real limit (routing table size) more responsibly. If routing tables can be much bigger in the future, we also have a whole lot more room to grow / allocate it differently. The chunk from which allocation is occurring (2000/3, plus the multicast and link local blocks, etc) is less than 1/4th the space; furthermore, more than half of the space within this is reserved. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assign...

Yeah, but to set up an AAAA record, you still need the IP address. The usability still leaves something to be desired. At least we should never run out of IPv6 addresses.

denkmoon 7y ago

If you're setting up a AAAA once, you can deal with the copy paste. If you're updating them a lot, or a lot all at once, you should probably use a dynamic DNS updater.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> At least we should never run out of IPv6 addresses. This is true in terms of the raw total number of IPv6 addresses. Everything I've seen discussing them assumes they'll be assigned hierarchically, though, which is a great way to ensure most of them are never used. Block assignments through a hierarchy can chew through any number of addresses no matter how big the space is.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
waste_monk 7y ago
Heirarchical assignment allows route summarisation. Imagine how much TCAM you'd need for unsummarized IPv6.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Yes, you're correct. But at the same time hierarchical assignment allows organization, including route summarization, it undermines the argument that there are too many addresses to exhaust. Addresses can easily be (in fact, are guaranteed to be) exhausted by the organizational system without ever being in use. The goals are in conflict.
  - Dagger2 7y ago
    They are being used -- for the purpose of allowing the internet to scale. But yes, we do need to be careful not to assign blocks that are too large. We're doing a good job of this (see any /8s being assigned?). We're also doing allocations only from 2000::/3, and there are five more completely untouched /3s available, so if we do somehow run out of space in 2000::/3 then we can start over with tighter allocation polices... five times over.
mlyle 7y ago
As said by others, you need hierarchy to avoid routing tables becoming excessively large-- that's the real limit. Since an IPv6 subnet can hold effectively any number of hosts, and it's easier to give bigger chunks of networks, the chances that a given org needs multiple assignments is much lower. In turn we use that real limit (routing table size) more responsibly. If routing tables can be much bigger in the future, we also have a whole lot more room to grow / allocate it differently. The chunk from which allocation is occurring (2000/3, plus the multicast and link local blocks, etc) is less than 1/4th the space; furthermore, more than half of the space within this is reserved. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assign...