ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

2000-08-11 16:10:02
"Salavat R. Magazov" wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_at_)hursley(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Corzine, Gordie" <Gordon(_dot_)Corzine(_at_)compaq(_dot_)com>
Cc: <IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

"Corzine, Gordie" wrote:

Seriously,

As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs
to
for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
address assignment.

This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.

(The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.000039 )

Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
internet on every routing table update?

No, of course not. The routes will aggregate exactly like CIDR routes.
In principle at least, we hope to see a default free routing table
of only about 2^13 or 2^14 entries, less than today.

   Brian