[125008] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu Apr 8 14:04:41 2010
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:00:01 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100408175026.GE4808@dan.olp.net>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>,
Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote:
> On 08/04/10 17:17 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of
> > a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was
> > allocated to someone who only needed to address "3 servers"... say
> > six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six.
>
> Granted, that may have been the case many years ago.
>
> However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the
> ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today.
i picked a fairly recent example - the min allocation
size has fluctuated over time. still it is not the case
that most folks will get -exactly- what they need - they
will - in nearly every case - get more address space than
they need - due to the min allocation rules
> > Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders
> > (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very
> > long time.
> >
> > What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the
> > existant IPv4 pool?
>
> I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption.
and that outdated assumption is?
> Dan White
--bill
