<story><title>IPv6 Exhaustion Counter</title><url>https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion.htm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>vanzard</author><text>This counter is completely inaccurate. I used to work for a company that was doing email marketing (I quit because I disagreed with their practices). My employer was buying about one &amp;#x2F;48 per week. What does this mean? We alone exhausted 2^80 ip addresses per week, or 2e18 addresses per second (that&amp;#x27;s 2 quintillion!). So this counter showing 2 addresses exhausted per second is wrong by an order of 1 quintillion.&lt;p&gt;In fact, with the proper paperwork you can still relatively easily buy an entire &amp;#x2F;40 or maybe even &amp;#x2F;32. With these practices, IPv6 WILL run out of addresses within the next 100 years. Well, to be pedantic, it will run out of allocatable subnets, but the vast majority of their addresses will remain unused.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>byuu</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve wondered about that. My ISP gives me a &amp;#x2F;64.&lt;p&gt;On the one hand, it seems cheap to give me one-four-billionth of the relative amount of space as the one IPv4 address they give me.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, I can&amp;#x27;t possibly imagine which consumer home network needs four billion times more IP addresses than &lt;i&gt;all of IPv4 combined&lt;/i&gt;. (EUI-64 notwithstanding.)&lt;p&gt;It would seem like &amp;#x2F;112 would be way more than enough for home use (131,072 unique IPs), even for complex setups with lots of subnetting, and &amp;#x2F;96 for small business use.&lt;p&gt;I understand that giving out &amp;#x2F;64s will still take 4 billion times longer to exhaust all IPs than IPv4, but ... it still feels like they&amp;#x27;re being overly generous. 64-bit IPs would have more than enough to outlast our sun going supernova if we were smarter about allocating them.</text></comment>
<story><title>IPv6 Exhaustion Counter</title><url>https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion.htm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>vanzard</author><text>This counter is completely inaccurate. I used to work for a company that was doing email marketing (I quit because I disagreed with their practices). My employer was buying about one &amp;#x2F;48 per week. What does this mean? We alone exhausted 2^80 ip addresses per week, or 2e18 addresses per second (that&amp;#x27;s 2 quintillion!). So this counter showing 2 addresses exhausted per second is wrong by an order of 1 quintillion.&lt;p&gt;In fact, with the proper paperwork you can still relatively easily buy an entire &amp;#x2F;40 or maybe even &amp;#x2F;32. With these practices, IPv6 WILL run out of addresses within the next 100 years. Well, to be pedantic, it will run out of allocatable subnets, but the vast majority of their addresses will remain unused.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>worklogin</author><text>While others are asking &amp;quot;Why is CompanyA buying a &amp;#x2F;48 a week?&amp;quot;, my question is &amp;quot;Why isn&amp;#x27;t ISP-A asking CompanyA why they need a &amp;#x2F;48 a week?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;IPv6 operates in several of these hierarchical subnets. A &amp;#x2F;64 is the smallest, and is usually for customers and edges. A &amp;#x2F;48 or &amp;#x2F;52 is reasonable for a datacenter, as it provides up to 2^12 subnets.&lt;p&gt;But even then, doing a &amp;#x2F;48 per DC, there is no reason for not-Huge-Cloud-Provider to be gathering that much IP.</text></comment>