ISP customer assignments

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
21

From: Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov [mailto:Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments

Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
issues with routing /48's globally, I think you will find more
organizations fighting for /32s or smaller...

Most organizations will still be assigned a /48 (or whatever) from their
ISP. Provider-aggregable addressing has no routing scalability problems.

I can see between IPv4 and IPv6 is how much of a pain it is to type a 128
bit address...

I have to agree, here. Moving between letters and numbers, and having
to hit "shift" to use the colon wastes valuable keystrokes compared to
the keypad. However, compare IPv6 vs IPv4-like numbering:

2001:db8:f1::1
81.93.35.12.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1

Did I type the right number of zeroes?

I don't know, but, it's not 81.93.35.12...

It's:
32.1.13.184.241.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1

And that is the correct number of zeroes for 2001:db8:f1::1.

Also, there's no reason the syntax couldn't be made

32.1.13.184.241..1

although that isn't the case today. However, I believe
that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1
and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so,
32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if
you expanded todays IPv4 notation to accept IPv6 length
addresses.

Owen

22

So if you expand the notation like that, is 32.1.13.7 a 32 bit IPv4
address, or a 128 bit IPv6 address with lots of zeros between 13 and 7?

They chose the ":" instead of overloading '.' for a *reason*...