[136733] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Fri Feb 4 14:11:33 2011
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D4C49BE.3030907@hstrauss.co.za>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:11:02 -0800
To: Heinrich Strauss <heinrich@hstrauss.co.za>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is =
no business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be =
returned to the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary =
cost.
However, doing enough of a migration to be able to actually free up the =
IPv4 addresses, in advance of the devices using them dying of old age or =
being naturally cycled out, also imposes a cost, and likely a high one =
relative to the RIR maintenance fees, so it's my guess that the rate of =
IPv4 returns may not be too fast.
> This would seem to counteract the forced move to IPv6, since, once the =
early adopters move their services exclusively to IPv6 (or maintaining =
very small IPv4 blocks), there would be plenty of IPv4 space for the =
late adopters to request.
If you look at the actual numbers involved, I think you'll find that the =
"plenty" would actually be quite small and in quite small chunks, =
relative to what the industry could use, if they weren't trying to get =
over to v6. So I doubt it will have that much effect.
> Has it been stated by all RIRs that IPv4 blocks are unallocatable once =
the exhaustion phase kicks in? Or is there another mechanism to ensure =
that we don't hand out the space being handed back once IPv6 is the =
norm?
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably =
brisk business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller =
blocks. One way to think about it is that there's no particular reason =
to think that the rate of increase in the number of IPv4 prefixes in the =
global BGP routing table will slack off, therefore those prefixes will =
each simply be smaller and smaller, over time. More or less.
Speaking not particularly with my ARIN-board-hat-on,
-Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAk1MT0YACgkQGvQy4xTRsBH3RwCgpfo6JbOC8aYnsCu3h5B9++6u
qA4AoJVds96Ua9dvqx2RDUw9qBZcyOQK
=3DaMk8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
