Comments on: The Sheer Size of IPV6 https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/ Linux. GNU. Freedom. Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:00:46 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0-alpha-42127 By: Fanyit https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-271679 Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:27:19 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-271679 ipv6 addresses are much better ip adress then ipv4

]]>
By: Gwynneth Snodgras https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-236236 Sun, 05 Jul 2015 20:41:50 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-236236 I really like the representation of how big IPv6 is: IPv6 Size. It's an interactive graphic (the yellow and green squares are buttons) that lets you zoom in and out of the space.

]]>
By: corrector https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-117147 Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:37:16 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-117147 Aaron, your math really is wrong. Basically you make the mistake of forgetting to square the "addresses along one pixel edge" to obtain the "address per pixel" value. Or it could be a language issue where you fail to distingu
ish that these 2 terms mean 2 different things.

Let's take your first example: a 65536-pixel image. If each pixel represented 256 addresses, then the image would represent 65,536 (pixels) * 256 (address/pixel) = 16,777,216 addresses. Far from 4,294,967,296, the total number of IPv4 addresses...

In reality what you mean to explain is that each PIXEL SIDE represents 256 addresses, so each PIXEL represents 256*256 = 65,536 addresses.

]]>
By: Aaron Toponce https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116603 Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:16:22 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116603 IPv4 only hands out 4.2 billion addresses, not 6 billion. It's a 32-bit addressing space.

]]>
By: Michael https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116601 Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:51:22 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116601 (just as comment to the few "IPv4 isn't running out any time soon and NAT is all we need anyway" posts)

]]>
By: Michael https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116600 Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:49:12 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116600 Growing IPv4 with NAT is a bad solution, and there's nothing wrong with moving on past a 30 year old protocol. IPv4 has about 6 billion addresses, significantly fewer actually usable. 7 Billion people. Plus how many devices in their homes and workplaces? Sure, you can NAT that, 100 billion devices even. But how are you going to make a reliable Skype connection when you're 3 NATs deep at your home and your friend is 5 NATS deep in China? It can be made to work, but ask any anyone in the business if an entire planet in a NAT mess like that wouldn't be severely dysfunctional. The cost of that vs deploying IPv6 and letting IPv4 go the way of IPX/SPX is far cheaper.

]]>
By: John Wakeman https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116469 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:51:55 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116469 Another motivation. More and more apps imbed the users IP address somewhere deeper in the packet than the Network layer. While there are plenty of Application Gateways to do the translation, each time we translate, the dialogue is delayed and departs from optimum.
Oh and operationally, there is a motivation - you can do away with NAT and Application Gateways if you use IPv6.

Too bad there is no killer app yet, that would accelerate the migration.
cheers,
John

]]>
By: Alan Evans https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116385 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:58:41 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116385 Another way of thinking about it is how many addresses can be assigned for each gram of mass on earth.

Mass of eath in kg = 5.9736 x 10 ^24
So in grames = 5.9736 x 10 ^27

2^128 / 5.9736 x 10 ^27 = 56 Billion

56 billion addresses per GRAM of matter on earth!

]]>
By: Aaron Toponce https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116141 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:28:03 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116141 I appreciate people checking my math, but it's not wrong. Let's go over it step-by-step:

sqrt(2^128) = 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 - addresses along one edge (Area of a square = length * width)
105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 6652800 pixels per linear mile
2^64/6652800 ~= 2772778991358 address miles per pixel
256 addresses * 105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 1703116800 addresses per mile
2^64/1703116800 ~= 10831167934 linear miles
2^32 addresses * 105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 28573558426828800 addresses per mile
2^64/28573558426828800 ~= 645 linear miles

The math checks out fine.

]]>
By: TWE https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116140 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:10:34 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116140 Jean @6 suggests that using current "address stretching" solutions (presumably subnetting, CIDR, private addressing & NAT) we could extend the life of IPv4 for another 10+ years. (Not true) Simmilarly, Joseph @7 suggests that we’ve been warning of the demise of IPv4 for a dozen years (true), and suggests this is “crying wolf.” (Not true) And Ken @24 suggests that since NAT “hides” IP addresses, that it will allow IPv4 to be around for ‘a long time.’ (maybe true, depending on what you mean by ‘around’)

A brief history.

IPv4 was developed in 1974-75 out of a need for a universal addressing system for global routing. Back then smart phones, wireless laptops, and even PCs did not exist. (The microprocessor chip had just been invented 2 years earlier, and the very first microcomputer kits, like the Altair 8080 were just coming into existence; but these were more “geek toys” than practical computing or networking devices.) Computers were big, monstrous devices that took up large rooms – or at least large closets – and cost tens- or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only large corporations and universities had computers, and only a small percentage of their employees knew how to operate them. In that environment, 4.3 billion addresses seemed like a virtually unlimited supply. I’m not sure of the exact figure, but I’m guessing that there were less than 100,000 computers (or at most a few hundred thousand) in the entire world at that time. So the designers of IP were not concerned with address space efficiency and designed the classful system that only allowed for three sizes of networks; class C (254 hosts or smaller), class B (up to 65,534 hosts), and class A (up to 16,777,214 hosts). At the time, they anticipated that the vast majority of network address requests would be for class C. The classful addressing system allowed for 126 class A, 16,384 class B, and just over 2 million class C networks in total.

When IBM introduced the PC in 1981, they legitimized the microcomputer as both a business tool and as a networking device. With the PC boom came a significant increase in the rate of requests for class B networks. Organizations came to realize that with a PC on every desktop, networks capable of supporting only ~250 host devices would not be large enough to accommodate future growth. This is when the “IP engineers” started to worry about the limits of the IPv4 address space. It was not that they would run out of IP *addresses* per se, but rather that they would run out of IP *networks* - specifically class B networks – by the early 1990’s. Once the 16 thousand class B networks were allocated, we could start giving organizations class A networks, but with only about 100 of them, that would not last long.

The first significant “address stretching” solution introduced in the mid-1980’s was subnetting, and was later refined with Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) and Variable Length Subnet Masking (VLSM). This allowed organizations to divide larger class B and class A networks into smaller subnets and allocate only the portion of a classful network that an organization needed. Combined with re-claiming unused address space from previously-deployed class B and class A networks, this eased the address crunch.

The most recent surge in IP address allocation came in the first decade of the new millennia. The popularity of mobile devices – wireless laptops and more recently smartphones – have again accelerated the consumption of IP addresses. On January 31 of this year (2011), IANA – the international “keeper of the IP addresses” – allocated the last blocks of IPv4 address space to APNIC, the Asia/Pacific regional Internet registry. As the regional registries allocate their remaining addresses to ISPs, they cannot replenish their stores. As the ISPs assign those remaining addresses to their customers, they, too will not be able to replenish. Once they’re out – that’s it. Nada. Nil. Over. Done.

Local networks can still use IPv4 for as long as they want, but the ISPs will have to switch over to IPv6 if they want to continue to grow and expand their customer base. Customers who choose to stick with IPv4 locally will eventually still have to accommodate IPv6 on their WAN connection to their ISP (just as Comcast cable TV customers eventually had to get digital TVs or converters as the cable company phased out analog service). Any telecomm service providers that don’t migrate to IPv6 will find themselves dying by virtue of being obsolete. Sooner or later, the end-user networks will also make the switch over. (Does anyone still use DOS or Windows 95? Yes, but they’re technological “hermits” who exist with no support or sympathy.)

The bottom line – while we’ve done a remarkable job in keeping this 37-year-old technology running this long (kind of like my grandfather’s 1967 Mustang), we are now at the point where it is beyond repair and it is time to replace it with a new, bigger, and better Internet Protocol.

p.s. As to Jorge @16’s question about IPv5, there was an experimental protocol (Internet Stream Protocol, or ST) developed in the late 1970’s that was dubbed “IP version 5” (ca. 1994). Its intention was to create a protocol that would better handle virtual circuits and streaming data. It was never widely deployed, and has since been replaced by better protocols like Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). More to the point; ST (or IPv5, if you will) did not create a new addressing system – it used IPv4’s addressing scheme and therefore is/would be in the same predicament.

]]>
By: TWE https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116139 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:19:43 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116139 A few more points:

As Julien @14 and mamou @17 pointed out, there are a few errors in Aaron's math.

For the first image, each pixel represents 2^16 = 65,536 IPv4 adresses, not 256. Keeping that pixel representation (65536, not 256) in paragraph 6 makes Aaron's monitor's pixel size correct, but his converting that to miles is off by a factor of 10 - it would need to be about 10.8 billion miles, not 1.08 billion. That's approximately where the Voyager I spacecraft is now, 33 years after it was launched. (This is considered outside the sun's "sphere of influence", i.e. outside our solar system.)

In the next paragrph (P 7), if we allocate an entire IPv4 address space per pixel, we'd need a monitor that was 2^48 = 281,474,976,710,656 pixels on a side (Aaron's value is off by a factor of 4096). That monitor, at Aaron's pixel density woul still have to be ~42.3 million miles on a side - about the distance from Mercury to the sun.

For Aaron's "six-state" monitor illustrated in the third image, each pixel would need to represent 2^64 (~18.4 quintillion) IP addresses, not the 2^32 (~4.3 billion) that Aaron suggests.

With these corrections, this still makes an awesome visualization of the vastness of IPv6 space.

]]>
By: TWE https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-116134 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:43:39 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-116134 Here's another mind boggling analogy:

If, from the 128-bit IPv6 addressing space, a block of addresses equivalent to the entire IPv4 addressing space (~4.3 billion addresses; an entire “Internet”) were assigned every *nanosecond* since the dawn of the universe -– not the dawn of mankind or the dawn of the Earth, but from the big bang itself -– we would up to now have assigned less than 1% of the available IPv6 space, and would have enough addresses still left to keep going for another 2.5 trillion years. (Note that the universe is “only” about 13.7 billion years old, yet we would have enough addresses left to keep going for another 2.5 trillion years.)

]]>
By: Sie nennen es… « GlassBlog https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115475 Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:34:14 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115475 [...] den Begriff IPv6 gestolpert, der den nachfolgenden Standard beschreibt. Damit stehen dann wieder echt viele IP-Adressen für das Netz zur [...]

]]>
By: El final de Internet sobre IPV4 | El rincón de JMACOE https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115374 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:24:05 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115374 [...] En comparación con los 4.3×10^9 de la IPv4, que es muchísimo más. Muchísimo más es considerado suficiente para el futuro previsible. ¿Por qué esto no es similar a tan sólo marcar un número o más en tu teléfono cuando haces [...]

]]>
By: Ken C. https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115373 Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:57:38 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115373 This is fascinating! It shows the inherent difficulties of representing data sets containing both extremely small and extremely large data values in a visual manner. Of course, you could show the data logarithmically, but many people do not as readily readily grasp the relationships of the data elements when shown that way.

I think IPV4 will be around for a long time, since NAT provides a way to "hide" the real IPV4 addresses behind routers. Technologies often seem to live on well past their prime, simply due to the investments that have been made in them, and the costs of switching to a newer, better technology.

After all... we're still using COBOL! I worked with a client last summer who has an entire claims processing system running in Cobol... on Unix, no less! It will likely still be running long after I retire... on IPV4! :O)

]]>
By: Is het internet op? | Thomas van Manen https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115372 Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:44:49 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115372 [...] Het internet groeit en groeit. En dat gaat voorlopig niet veranderen. Helaas zitten daar allemaal problemen aan verbonden voor aanbieders, maar ook voor consumenten. Neem bijvoorbeeld IP-adressen, binnen twee weken is de huidige voorraad aan IP-adressen op. Geen paniek, daar is al een oplossing voor. We gaan overschakelen naar een ander ‘systeem’  met meer ruimte. Heel veel meer ruimte zelfs. [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is full! | Blog of Christian Felde https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115370 Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:32:25 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115370 [...] contains 3.4×1038 addresses. Compared to IPv4's 4.3×109 that's a lot more. So much more that it's deemed enough for the foreseeable future. So why isn't this similar to just dialing a number or more on your phone when you make a phone [...]

]]>
By: Why Your IP Address May Soon Be Antique « Entrepreneur Avenue https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115368 Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:16:40 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115368 [...] is, since it can support longer IP addresses, it can allow for more IP addresses–a lot more). This page gives a graphical comparison of just how many more IP addresses IPv6 supports. Google has already flipped the switch on many of [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of | Articles | Capstone Creations | Louisville Website Design https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115365 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:41:47 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115365 [...] have a ridiculously long phone number.IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses that are expect to be added to the internet.Any way if the internet crashes and all is [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of « Abrition https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115361 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:09:52 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115361 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: Parece que es lo mismo que el famoso 2KY: Se acaban las direcciones IPv4 en una semana: ¡el IP-calipsis! « RadioContempo Magazine https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115360 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:02:06 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115360 [...] la siguiente versión de direcciones, la IPv6, un sistema que invoca letras y dígitos para manejar 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 direcciones IP (a ver quién sabe leer este número de [...]

]]>
By: Have We Run Out of Space on the Internet? | 香港新媒體協會 https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115359 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:22:54 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115359 [...] is taking a step to encourage other ISPs to transfer to the new IPv6 system, which allows for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 combinations. Their Twitter account is counting down the days and IP addresses left before we [...]

]]>
By: IPv4countdown | Outsource House https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115357 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:08:31 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115357 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: “The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of” via @mashable | @tomcuthbert https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115356 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:21:38 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115356 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: | NerdCode https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115355 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:41:46 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115355 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space...Kind of https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115354 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:10:09 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115354 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: Internet Space https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115353 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:51:30 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115353 [...] yes, I can prove it. Or at least show you a page proving it. No Related Post [...]

]]>
By: Se acaban las direcciones IPv4 en una semana: ¡el IP-calipsis! | en Soy Gik {sg} https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115352 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:06:06 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115352 [...] la siguiente versión de direcciones, la IPv6, un sistema que invoca letras y dígitos para manejar 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 direcciones IP (a ver quién sabe leer este número de [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of | luyos.com https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115351 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:31:16 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115351 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of | iuvo Shopper & Community Newspaper News https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115349 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 05:42:44 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115349 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: CitiPrice Internet Properties » The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115348 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 05:33:37 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115348 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of » Server King https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115347 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:15:06 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115347 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: Ip’s are running out https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115346 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:33:11 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115346 [...] long before others did and invented IPv6, a system that uses both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. Tags: ip, ipv4, ipv6 blog comments powered by Disqus [...]

]]>
By: Just ten days before Internet runs out of IPv4 addresses | It's All Tech https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115345 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:19:38 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115345 [...] IP addresses has been under development, dubbed IPv6. IPv6 uses both numbers and letters to create 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (which translates into “a lot”) addresses. With that number of possible addresses, [...]

]]>
By: The Internet is Running Out of Space…Kind of | Affinity https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115344 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:15:55 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115344 [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

]]>
By: SRC https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-115339 Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:13:02 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-115339 So, 10 more days I suppose...

]]>
By: Ben https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-111531 Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:07:48 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-111531 Shizer!
That is big...
What would this new monitor of yours cost, and can i come and watch avatar on it... never mind actually, no need to come over, i will just watch from south africa :-p

]]>
By: Air Rift https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-111035 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:12:21 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-111035 When I tried to get redundant routing from two separate ISPs, I learned that no public ISP routes less than a /24 and many don’t route less than a /22. I don’t understand the advantage to IPv6 until there is routing for /48 – and I haven’t seen that discussed. What’s the point to having an address if no one can discover how to get there?

]]>
By: Air Rift https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-111034 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:07:17 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-111034 I’m sorry you’re bothered with using technology that is 8 years old, when it’s been replaced two times over. Maybe you should pressure your corporation (not “coroporation”- another reason you should be using an up-to-date browser- spell check is a good thing) into updating the policy to allow at least IE7 or IE8 or some other browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

]]>
By: Aaron https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-110110 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:18:27 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-110110 @you're awesome

I'm sorry you're bothered with using technology that is 8 years old, when it's been replaced two times over. Maybe you should pressure your corporation (not "coroporation"- another reason you should be using an up-to-date browser- spell check is a good thing) into updating the policy to allow at least IE7 or IE8 or some other browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

I've thought about it, and I don't want to support IE6 users visiting this site. So, either don't visit my site with IE6 or use a different browser. After all, I didn't force you here. You came here on your own. You're more than welcome to leave.

]]>
By: you're awesome https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-110108 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:06:55 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-110108 me view your content in ie6, which i'm forced to use by coroporate policy

]]>
By: IANA Predicts 04/12/2011 Date of IP Pool Exhaustion « man vs. technology https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109962 Mon, 11 May 2009 14:58:44 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109962 [...] each pixel on your monitor were to represent a number of IPv6 addresses it would come out to about 192,903,836,122,980,988,357,922,113,056,557 per pixel to cover the entire amount of [...]

]]>
By: mamou https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109961 Mon, 11 May 2009 09:51:17 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109961 Heyah, very nice article, though i think there is a mistake in the pixel representation of IPv4
256 * 256 = 65536 = 2^16 pixels in your square
so each pixel should be 2^16 addresses to get 2^16 * 2^16 = 2^32 addresses

Does the solar system representation then count?

]]>
By: jorge https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109857 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:01:20 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109857 Wouldn't IPV5 have been sufficient?

]]>
By: Diferencia visual entre IPv4 e IPv6 | Pablasso https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109847 Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:12:21 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109847 [...] En cambio necesitaríamos un monitor de tal tamaño que abarque desde la superficie del Sol hasta pasar la orbita de Saturno para ver las direcciones que nos proporciona IPv6. [...]

]]>
By: Stephen P. Schaefer https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109846 Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:55:40 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109846 When I tried to get redundant routing from two separate ISPs, I learned that no public ISP routes less than a /24 and many don't route less than a /22. I don't understand the advantage to IPv6 until there is routing for /48 - and I haven't seen that discussed. What's the point to having an address if no one can discover how to get there?

]]>
By: Julien Goodwin https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109844 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:54:47 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109844 Your comment about the IPv4 image is wrong.

IPv4 is 2^32, dropping 2^16 (2^8 * 2^8 image) leaves 2^16 IP's per pixel, or a /16, 64k IP's per pixel.

Also my personal way of describing v6 is:
* Each ISP gets 4-billion subnets (a /32), there's potentially 4 billion of these
* Each user is assigned either 256 (a /56) or 64k (a /48) subnets, 64k large allocations or 16M smaller ones
* Each subnet is four billion times the size of the entire IPv4 internet

]]>
By: Aaron https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109843 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:43:04 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109843 It's a bit larger than that. If there are exactly 6.5 billion people on the planet, and each person lived in their own house, and each of house had 6.5 billion light switches (I think we've grossly overdone an even remotely accurate representation, no?), we would still have left over 340,282,366,920,938,463,421,124,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. Yeah- we're barely scratching the surface with that one. You might want to tell your professor to find a better model. 🙂

]]>
By: Aaron https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109842 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:31:39 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109842 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipv4+exhaustion

]]>
By: Aaron https://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/#comment-109841 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:30:31 +0000 http://pthree.org/?p=973#comment-109841 Fixed. Thanks!

]]>