[123353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Mar 5 13:14:23 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1003050755n3242d973sc0854c100bdd1511@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 02:08:11 +0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 05:24 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Joel made a remarkable assertion
>>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
>>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6.
>>
>> A couple of months ago my then employer went to arin to get a direct v6
>> assignmentment. on the basis of the number of pops the resulting
>> assignment was a /43. It'll be a while I imagine before another prefix
>> is required.
>
> Ah, I follow your reasoning. I'll be interested to learn whether the
> numbers agree. ARIN staff has reported before that the vast majority
> of IPv4 end user assignments go to organizations which do not
> subsequently return for additional assignments. In general it's the
> ISPs who come back for more allocations... I wonder if the minority of
> end-user orgs who do request additional space request enough
> additional blocks to make a difference in the routing tables.
Well, between that, and, the fact that ISPs should be asking for additional
space a _LOT_ less frequently and all cases should be more likely to
get an aggregable expansion of their allocation/assignment now that
we are delegating by bisection, I think both of those things will reduce
the rate at which growth within organizations increases the routing
table by quite a bit.
Owen
