That is a fun exercise! However the reality is that public IPv6 is always given out in 48 or 64 bits prefixes (minimum).
replyThe math is a lot less impressive when you do it with 2^48 or 2^64.
Yep. IPv6 should be thought of as 2^64 subnets, each with "enough space for everyone" within each subnet.
replyBut it is really about more than just the available pool of addresses.
replyMuch of the IPv6 rollout challenges have been centered around routing and security. It's great that I can personally have (in theory) more IP addresses than I would ever practically need (and I am saying this as someone with 200 IP endpoints just in my house), but if I can't easily manage and control access much of the theoretical benefit goes away.
IMO, IPv6 solved the address pool size part of the issue, but it made managing the v4 to v6 transition very painful.
> IMO, IPv6 solved the address pool size part of the issue, but it made managing the v4 to v6 transition very painful.
replyThere is no easy way to transition from IPv4 to any kind of IPng; see my other comment:
You can still control access. Most home routers have firewalls that work a lot like V4 port forwarding except they don't have to maintain NAT tables or use as much CPU
.
reply[dead]
reply