[133376] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Dec 8 17:07:48 2010
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinb74OYHkyBgN-Ezr4cx7dO3WWUovQFx-5qMOWY@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:06:59 +0100
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8 dec 2010, at 19:59, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Just because we've been treading water as fast as possible to try to =
stay
> above the drowing point in small prefix ranges does *not* mean we have
> extra headroom to waste on even smaller ranges.
It's not the size of the prefixes that's the problem, but their number. =
I'm working under the assumption that the new /28s (or whatever) will =
appear where /24s would have appeared in earlier years. We can think of =
several measures to limit the numbers of these small blocks, like only =
allowing one per AS number, or even limiting the number that the RIRs =
get to give out each year.
Remember there's about 10 times as many prefixes as ASes, having one =
prefix for each of the 5000 new ASes that are given out each year is NOT =
the problem. It's the fact that existing ASes increase their prefix load =
year over year.
> Just move to v6, already. v4 is done. trying to keep it on life =
support
> is going to cost everyone time, money, and reduced life span due to
> increased stress.
There won't be addresses to number new ISP customers in IPv4 anyomore =
pretty soon.
But content doesn't need many addresses, especially if we get rid of =
artificial barriers like "you need 256 addresses to play". Eyeballs on =
v6 and content on v4 is workable, the other way around isn't.
> and use a rent-a-block of v4 space from an
> upstream to host a 4-to-6 proxy box to allow legacy v4 users to reach
> your content.
You can't do this in a protocol agnostic way. You need to go in at layer =
7 to make this work. 6 clients to 4 servers can be done with something =
that isn't much worse than regular NAT.=
