4 ms·

That sure sounds like a lot. But "billions" is less than a /64. Try "sextillions" (/56) or "septillions" (/48). Of course, when the denominator is "undecilli

That sure sounds like a lot. But "billions" is less than a /64. Try "sextillions" (/56) or "septillions" (/48). Of course, when the denominator is "undecillions", it becomes clear that this is actually a non-issue.

joering2 3y ago
I'd even go out of my way and say that undecillion of IP addresses ought to be enough for anybody.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  Bold prediction! Let's see if it holds true in 200 years when every cybernetic cell in your body is individually addressable from the public internet.
  - ale42 3y ago
    This is almost IPv9 (RFC1606)! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1606 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1606 The up to 42 deep hierarchy of routing levels built into IPv9 must have been one of the key features for its wide deployment. [...] As yet, no requirement has been found for levels 40-42, with level 39 still being used for experimental interrogation of atomic structure of components where required. Of course, it's a 1st April RFC. For those who don't know them, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day_Request_for_Comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day_Request_for_C...: they include thinks like terminals with subliminal messages, IP over pigeons...
  - Nition 3y ago
    98% of all IPv6 addresses will be set aside for self-replicating nanobots and our bodily cells will have to fight over only the remaining 2%.
mike_d 3y ago
ARIN recently handed out a /16 allocation to Capital One. That is one 65,025th of all of IPv6. A reasonable sized /32 allocation would have allowed for giving every ATM they operate worldwide its own globally routable /48.
- greyface- 3y ago
  Too bad ARIN tickets aren't public - I would love to read the one in which that was justified. Reading NRPM 6.5.2.1, it seems that they must have submitted documentation claiming at least 2^28 distinct serving sites in order to qualify for an assignment that large.
- ta1243 3y ago
  I find the insistence of using /64s everywhere for networks frustrating. Any network larger than a /112 seems crazy, that's already 65k IPs per subnet. A /104 for every normal end user (256 subnets per user), or a /80 for massive companies like Capital One (4 billion subnets) should be more than enough.
  - tuetuopay 3y ago
    There is a really practical reason behind this, and it is called "routers". Due to longest prefix match, you'll end up wasting resources on the networking hardware. And you waste both precious and expensive TCAM and LPM latency for matching the prefixes. So routers do optimize for anything shorter than /64, and have special lookup memory for /64 and /128. But nothing in-between.
    - ta1243 3y ago
      That's fair enough, in which case ipv6 is really only a /76 (having more than 1000 hosts on a subnet isn't a great thing, even with no broadcast and arp and other traffic, and /76 allows 4000 on a /64) Those fanboys going "we'll never run out of 2^128 IPs" are being disingenuous when about 2^59 of them have been burnt straight away (I'd guess most subnets have less than 30 devices) 2^64 subnets is a reasonable number, but when they are handed out like candy that number dwindles quickly. ARIN is allocating the equivalent of a /15 every year. That's fine if it's a constant allocation, there's 100,000 years worth, but if that rate grows, the space will be eaten in a matter of a few decades.
iLoveOncall 3y ago
I'm sure people said exactly this about IPv4 back in the days.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? That subnet is large enough to then assign an IP address to every individual atom in that grain of sand. For comparison, if we wanted to assign every living person on Earth a grain of sand, we would only need a few cubic feet of it (less than 1 cubic meter).
  - corobo 3y ago
    Nanites might give you a good start Of course we'd all be paperclips long before they need to worry about networking
  - diggan 3y ago
    > Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? As parent said, I'm sure people made the exact same argument about IPv4 back in the day, but comparing it to something else. And when IPv16 finally appears in the future, people will yet again make exactly the same argument.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      > As parent said, I'm sure people made the exact same argument about IPv4 back in the day, but comparing it to something else. You're ignoring the sheer scale of this question. We don't have enough raw materials on this planet, or likely in the observable universe, to produce enough devices that would consume that many IPs. We could colonize 1 billion planets. Each of those planets could have 100 billion people. Each of those 100 billion people could own 1 billion "things" that could be considered "networked devices". Each of those "things" could consume 1 billion IPs. We could have all that, and we would still have 70% of the IPv6 space left. > The decision to put a 32-bit address space on there was the result of a year’s battle among a bunch of engineers who couldn’t make up their minds about 32, 128 or variable length. And after a year of fighting I said — I’m now at ARPA, I’m running the program, I’m paying for this stuff and using American tax dollars — and I wanted some progress because we didn’t know if this is going to work. So I said 32 bits, it is enough for an experiment, it is 4.3 billion terminations — even the defense department doesn’t need 4.3 billion of anything and it couldn’t afford to buy 4.3 billion edge devices to do a test anyway. So at the time I thought we were doing a experiment to prove the technology and that if it worked we’d have an opportunity to do a production version of it. Well — [laughter] — it just escaped! — it got out and people started to use it and then it became a commercial thing. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo69JQoLb8&t=816s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo69JQoLb8&t=816s They were contemplating 128 bits addresses all the way back then, but settled on 32 bits as a mere proof of concept that got out of hand.

joering2 3y ago

I'd even go out of my way and say that undecillion of IP addresses ought to be enough for anybody.

dns_snek 3y ago
Bold prediction! Let's see if it holds true in 200 years when every cybernetic cell in your body is individually addressable from the public internet.
- ale42 3y ago
  This is almost IPv9 (RFC1606)! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1606 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1606 The up to 42 deep hierarchy of routing levels built into IPv9 must have been one of the key features for its wide deployment. [...] As yet, no requirement has been found for levels 40-42, with level 39 still being used for experimental interrogation of atomic structure of components where required. Of course, it's a 1st April RFC. For those who don't know them, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day_Request_for_Comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day_Request_for_C...: they include thinks like terminals with subliminal messages, IP over pigeons...
- Nition 3y ago
  98% of all IPv6 addresses will be set aside for self-replicating nanobots and our bodily cells will have to fight over only the remaining 2%.

mike_d 3y ago

ARIN recently handed out a /16 allocation to Capital One. That is one 65,025th of all of IPv6. A reasonable sized /32 allocation would have allowed for giving every ATM they operate worldwide its own globally routable /48.

greyface- 3y ago
Too bad ARIN tickets aren't public - I would love to read the one in which that was justified. Reading NRPM 6.5.2.1, it seems that they must have submitted documentation claiming at least 2^28 distinct serving sites in order to qualify for an assignment that large.
ta1243 3y ago
I find the insistence of using /64s everywhere for networks frustrating. Any network larger than a /112 seems crazy, that's already 65k IPs per subnet. A /104 for every normal end user (256 subnets per user), or a /80 for massive companies like Capital One (4 billion subnets) should be more than enough.
- tuetuopay 3y ago
  There is a really practical reason behind this, and it is called "routers". Due to longest prefix match, you'll end up wasting resources on the networking hardware. And you waste both precious and expensive TCAM and LPM latency for matching the prefixes. So routers do optimize for anything shorter than /64, and have special lookup memory for /64 and /128. But nothing in-between.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    That's fair enough, in which case ipv6 is really only a /76 (having more than 1000 hosts on a subnet isn't a great thing, even with no broadcast and arp and other traffic, and /76 allows 4000 on a /64) Those fanboys going "we'll never run out of 2^128 IPs" are being disingenuous when about 2^59 of them have been burnt straight away (I'd guess most subnets have less than 30 devices) 2^64 subnets is a reasonable number, but when they are handed out like candy that number dwindles quickly. ARIN is allocating the equivalent of a /15 every year. That's fine if it's a constant allocation, there's 100,000 years worth, but if that rate grows, the space will be eaten in a matter of a few decades.

iLoveOncall 3y ago

I'm sure people said exactly this about IPv4 back in the days.

dns_snek 3y ago
Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? That subnet is large enough to then assign an IP address to every individual atom in that grain of sand. For comparison, if we wanted to assign every living person on Earth a grain of sand, we would only need a few cubic feet of it (less than 1 cubic meter).
- corobo 3y ago
  Nanites might give you a good start Of course we'd all be paperclips long before they need to worry about networking
- diggan 3y ago
  > Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? As parent said, I'm sure people made the exact same argument about IPv4 back in the day, but comparing it to something else. And when IPv16 finally appears in the future, people will yet again make exactly the same argument.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    > As parent said, I'm sure people made the exact same argument about IPv4 back in the day, but comparing it to something else. You're ignoring the sheer scale of this question. We don't have enough raw materials on this planet, or likely in the observable universe, to produce enough devices that would consume that many IPs. We could colonize 1 billion planets. Each of those planets could have 100 billion people. Each of those 100 billion people could own 1 billion "things" that could be considered "networked devices". Each of those "things" could consume 1 billion IPs. We could have all that, and we would still have 70% of the IPv6 space left. > The decision to put a 32-bit address space on there was the result of a year’s battle among a bunch of engineers who couldn’t make up their minds about 32, 128 or variable length. And after a year of fighting I said — I’m now at ARPA, I’m running the program, I’m paying for this stuff and using American tax dollars — and I wanted some progress because we didn’t know if this is going to work. So I said 32 bits, it is enough for an experiment, it is 4.3 billion terminations — even the defense department doesn’t need 4.3 billion of anything and it couldn’t afford to buy 4.3 billion edge devices to do a test anyway. So at the time I thought we were doing a experiment to prove the technology and that if it worked we’d have an opportunity to do a production version of it. Well — [laughter] — it just escaped! — it got out and people started to use it and then it became a commercial thing. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo69JQoLb8&t=816s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo69JQoLb8&t=816s They were contemplating 128 bits addresses all the way back then, but settled on 32 bits as a mere proof of concept that got out of hand.