Owen, The Open Source material says variously that US DoD has either a /13 or a /16
·
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment "As with IPv4, the Department of Defense holds a larger IPv6 allocation than any other entity, a /13 block, enough to
create almost 2.3 quadrillion (2.3×1015) local area networks, 64 times as many as the next largest entity".
This appears to rely on:
http://royal.pingdom..com/2009/03/26/the-us-department-of-defense-has-42-million-billion-billion-billion-ipv6-addresses/, which says "The US DoD has a /13 IPv6 block ..."
·
http://gcn.com/Articles/2007/02/03/DOD-to-allocate-its-IPv6-addresses.aspx?Page=1 "The Defense Department has acquired a block of 247 billion IP Version 6 addresses, about equal to 25 percent of the
entire IPv4 address space ... this collection of addresses, which in IP talk is known as a /16 (pronounced 'slash 16')" Both are fairly old, but someone with better Google skills than I may be able to find a more recent – and possibly more reliable – posting. Regards Mike From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong dot com]
The US DOD does not have a /13. I do not know why this myth continues to propagate. Owen On Sep 15, 2014, at 2:11 PM, HENDERSON MIKE, MR <MICHAEL.HENDERSON@nzdf.mil.nz> wrote:
I do not agree with the contention that allocations larger than /28 - e.g. /24 , /20 - will be "too huge". In my view there are three factors in play here: 1) we
are still "thinking small", a mind-set caused by the scarcity of IPv4 address space 2) we
are not considering use cases in the so-called "Internet of Things" where there may be requirements for support of huge client address spaces. As a mind experiment, imagine that one day in the not too distant future Toyota will want a /60 or even a /56 for
every vehicle they manufacture. At their current rat of production, close to 10 Million vehicles a year, they will need huge allocation rather quickly, and of course so will all the other vehicle manufacturers 3) we
are forgetting the historical precedent: the Australian Defence Force was allocated a /20 by APNIC in 2007, and the US Department of Defense already has a /13. So we have at least one organisation in APNIC who already thinks that a /20 is 'just right' rather
than 'too huge'. Regards Mike -----Original Message----- Hi all, Thank you again for your comments to prop-111. I got several comments for nibble boundary allocation. I think /28 might be OK, but additional allocation after /28 will be too huge with this allocation scheme (that will
be /24, /20, ...). Here is current summary of nibble boundary allocation. I would appreciate your additional opinions. Advantages: - ease of address masking and calculation - ease of DNS reverse delegation set up Disadvantages: - LIRs in legacy space cannot extend prefix to /28 - allocation size will be too huge (allocations after /28 will be /24, /20..) Yours Sincerely, -- Tomohiro Fujisaki * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not necessarily the official views
or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * The information contained in this Internet Email
message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
information, but not necessarily the official views or opinions of the New
Zealand Defence Force. If you are not the intended recipient you must not
use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone the sender immediately. |