[123309] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Mar 4 23:21:08 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <FA2E47FFA50291418803D2E7C1DF07F30A6A6B87@SDEXCL01.Proflowers.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:20:54 -0500
To: Thomas Magill <tmagill@providecommerce.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>> The most we could achieve would be to extend IPv4 freepool lifespan
>> by roughly 26 days. Given the amount of effort sqeezing useful
>> addresses out of such a conversion would require, I proffer that
>> such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
>> networks.
>=20
> A /8 sounded like a decent amount until you put it that way. Nice
> empirical data, even though its based completely on assumptions. But =
if
> it is even in the ballpark.. It is pretty obvious it isn't worth the
> effort.=20
When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll =
quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly =
become worth the effort.
Extrapolations of current IPv4 address space consumption become =
precisely useless when the existing policy regimes no longer apply.
This is not to say folks shouldn't be aggressively pursuing IPv6 =
deployment, merely that there is a vast installed base that will =
continue to require IPv4 addresses even after the RIRs allocate the last =
block they control.
Regards,
-drc
